K0AAZI2 AIQNIOE 



OR 



GEORGE W. KING 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

' "5T""^ k c 

Shelf 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



I 






K0AA212 A 1 Q N I O 2 



OR 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION 



> 



A 










By GEORGE W. KING 

Pastor of the Broadway Methodist Episcopal Church, Providence, R. I. 



It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." — Heij. x, 31 




/ 



NEW YORK: HUNT & EA TON 
CI NCI NN A TI: CRANSTON & STOWE 

1891 



, 




Copyright, 1891, by 
HUNT & EATON, 

New York. 



n 



The Library 

OF COKCBE§§ 



PREFACE. 



WE are persuaded that the a priori method 
of argument is too much used on both 
sides of this question. When used by the ortho- 
dox writer it is a bad example to his opponent, 
who finds an unlimited occasion for its use. In 
the present discussion, which we have under- 
taken to make both thorough and brief, we have 
appealed to fact, ignoring the a priori when in 
conflict with this, and have thus sought to be 
strictly scientific in our method. We have not 
sought novelty for its own sake, but the truth ; 
and where this could be served by the new or 
the old, we have not hesitated to accept either. 
Subservient to this aim, we think will be found in 
treatment and in thought sufficient that is new 
to justify publication, and make profitable the 
perusal of the present pages. Definiteness of 
thought and statement has also been an aim. 
Vagueness is too much the bane of too much 
theology, and the present doctrine has not es- 
caped its influence. We have sought to be both 



4 PREFACE. 

specific and exact. There has been no particular 
attempt at rhetorical effect. This may be legiti- 
mate in the treatment of a subject that is well 
accepted in the Church; but not, from our stand- 
point, in the scientific investigation and expo- 
sition of a doctrine so much in dispute as the 
present one. It may, however, be proper else- 
where, and we think the preacher will find in our 
treatment facts and seed-thoughts that may be 
properly elaborated in his public ministrations. 
Courtesy has been our rule toward opponents ; 
but also loyalty to truth and fact. 

Our line of treatment, without being distinctly 
specified, has been Fact, Nature, and Reason ; the 
first embracing chapters i-v ; the second, chap- 
ters vi and vii ; the eighth chapter, in which we 
occupy a quite independent position, compre- 
hending our entire discussion of the Reason, 
which might easily have been expanded into 
several but for our law of brevity. 

Among the works read and consulted in the 
immediate preparation of this book are the fol- 
lowing : Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the 
New Testament ; Edersheim's Life and Times 
of the Messiah (appendix xix) ; Vincent's Word. 
Studies in the Neiv Testament ; Shedd's Dog- 
matic Theology (vol. ii, pp. 667-754); Muller's 



PREFACE. 5 

Christian Doctrine of Sin ; Dorner's System of 
Christian Doctrine (vol. iv, pp. 127-132 and 373— 
434. Also, Dorner on the Future State, Smyth) ; 
Christian Dogmatics, Martensen ; Future Retri- 
bution, C. A. Row ; Future Probation Examined, 
William DeLoss Love ; Biblical Eschatology, 
Hovey; Is there Salvation After Death? E. D. 
Morris ; Spirits in Prison, Plumptre ; Salvator 
Mundi, Cox ; Restitution of All Things, Jukes ; 
Life in Christ, White ; Extinction of Evil, Peta- 
vel ; What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punish- 
ment ? Pusey ; Eternal Hope and Mercy and 
Judgment, Farrar ; Is " Eternal' Punishment 
Endless ? Whiton ; etc. And while acknowl- 
edging our indebtedness to all of these sources 
for suggestion and facts, we have, for the most 
part, pursued an independent course in that we 
have at least sought to verify for ourselves. 

Hoping the book may serve a useful purpose, 
we commit it to the candid attention of those 
to whom it shall come, and in the interest of the 
truth we have sought to defend and expound. 

G. W. K. 

Providence, R. I., March 25, 1891. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

PAGE 

The Eternity of Punishment 9 

CHAPTER II. 
Objections and Arguments of Restoration- 

ISTS 53 

CHAPTER III. 

New Testament Terminology Respecting 
Future Retribution 115 

-CHAPTER IV. 

The Ground of Future Endless Retribu- 
tion ; or, For What the Wicked are Pun- 
ished Eternally 141 

CHAPTER V. 
The Number of the Lost 193 

CHAPTER VI. 
The Nature of Future Punishment 209 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Doctrine of Annihilation 217 

CHAPTER VIII. • 

The Reason or Law of Necessity in Future 
Punishment 247 



" To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not accord- 
ing to this word, it is because there is no light in them." — Isa. 
viii, 20. 



-, *i* f^. fc.»- 



» • 



K0AA2I2 AlftNIOS; 

OR, 

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 



CHAPTER I. 

The Eternity of Punishment. 

THE fact of future retribution simply and as 
such is not now to be considered, since all 
writers who accept the Bible as a divine revela- 
tion are agreed as to its reality.' 5 *' The question 
before us is the question of duration : Is there 
endless future punishment of the wicked ? At 
this point there is much dispute, and its answer 
furnishes the chief ground of interest for the 

* It is seldom in our day that we find a writer, as Dr. W. E. 
Manley in the Arena for April, 1890, advocating the idea that 
the punishment of men is limited to this life. We once heard a 
Universalist minister, in the city of Baltimore, in a sermon in 
response to a lecture by Joseph Cook, in which Mr. Cook spoke 
of the eternal punishment of Aaron Burr and men like him, say : 
" After Aaron Burr has been in hell ten thousand years, perhaps 
he will be ready for heaven," or words to that effect. Practi- 
cally, the opinion of writers on the subject is unanimous in 
favor of some punishment after death. 



10 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

whole subject. We come, therefore, immediately 
to it, and attempt its settlement. 

Of course, the answer to our inquiry must be 
scriptural.' 55 ' No other answer is adequate or 
proper. Philosophy cannot answer it, for it is 
outside the realm of philosophy. It is a ques- 
tion of fact, and one which, if it is to be known 
at all, must be learned from the divine declara- 
tions. We proceed, therefore, to the biblical or 
exegetical consideration of the doctrine. Does 
the Bible teach the endless future punishment 
of the wicked? 

Making our appeal alone to the Scriptures, we 
believe one, and only one, answer is possible. It 
is the affirmative. This we proceed to prove. 

I. The most direct biblical support of the 
doctrine is Matt, xxv, 46: " And these shall go 
away into eternal punishment : but the righteous 
into eternal life " (R. V.). 

Except question were raised as to the natural 
and obvious import of this text it might be left 

* We say " of course," not because every writer follows this 
plan properly or faithfully, but because however much some 
ignore it in practice, all admit the validity of it as a principle of 
procedure. An exception, however, to this statement is found 
in the case of those who, with Dorner, appeal for doctrine to 
the Scriptures and to "faith," or to the Scriptures and the so- 
called " Christian Consciousness." But we have nothing to do 
with this doctrine in this place. 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. \\ 

to stand as it is, as God's warning against sin, 
without comment ; but since it is declared in 
certain quarters not to be so alarming as it ap- 
pears to the reader of the common English Bible, 
it becomes necessary to direct attention to what 
the language involves. 

Perhaps even the average layman has already 
become familiar with the fact that the words " ever- 
lasting M and " eternal M in the Authorized Version 
are translations of the same word (alcjvcog) in the 
original. This is made evident in the Revised Ver- 
sion by the substitution of the word " eternal " for 
" everlasting" in the first clause of the verse as 
found in the Authorized. The important fact 
learned here is that the duration expressed in the 
one case must be expressed also in the other ; that 
is, whatever the duration of the future life of the 
righteous, that also, so far as this text is concerned 
in its express teaching, must be the duration of the 
punishment of the wicked. If the one is eternal 
in the sense of endlessness, so also is the other.* 

* Dr. Farrar tries to minify the force of this simple but im- 
pregnable argument by stigmatizing it as " time-worn," as 
though, other things being equal, this did not strengthen rather 
than weaken it. Its manifest fairness will remain despite such 
unscientific slurs. 

On the other hand, Canon Row, in his Future Retribu- 
tion, admits the force of the parallel, and limiting the sense of 
aicjviog in the one case, he limits it also in the other. According 



12 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

2. Matt, xii, 31, 32: " Therefore I say unto 
you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven 



to him, the future endless life of the righteous is not revealed, 
but is derived from considerations of the divine love and mercy. 
He says (pp. 266, 267): <4 I fully admit that the word aluviog, 
when united with (,corj, life, must have the same meaning as it 
bears when it is in the same sentence united with the words 
KoXacig or 7rvp. But there is this difference between the two 
cases. When the aeon, or aeons, denoted by the word ai&viog, 
are coming to a close, all holy beings will still be able to look 
up to Him who is, and who was, and who is to come, the 
Almighty, as the unchangeable father of mercies and the God of 
all comfort, and as in his essential being, love ; and their 
4 abiding in love ',' causing them to abide in God and God in 
them, affords the strongest ground for trust that their life with 
God will never end. Full well, therefore, may they be satisfied 
during the aeons of the future with living in that state of hope 
and trust in God in which the saints of the Old Testament lived 
and died, though its pages contain no express revelation of a 
life to come. Yet, as we have seen, not a few of the most en- 
lightened saints of that dispensation entertained the firmest 
faith, notwithstanding the clouds and darkness with which God's 
present providences were enshrouded, that it would be finally 
well with those who loved God, and who lived in obedience to 
his laws. Why, then, should not the inheritor of the perfected 
kingdom of God be satisfied with the same assurance as sup- 
ported his Jewish brother during the age in which he lived, that 
God, who is unchangeable in his perfections, will never desert 
them that love him throughout all the ages of the future, when, 
to use the words of the apostle, ' God will be alt in all ? ' This 
is an assurance on which we may rely with far more fullness of 
conviction than on a word which varies so greatly in meaning as 
the word alcjvtog, ' eternal. 1 " 

Such teaching, while that only which is logically tenable 
from the denial that future endless punishment is taught in the 
text, is an example of the straits to which those who deny this 
doctrine are frequently driven. 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT 13 

unto men ; but the blasphemy against the Spirit 
shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall 
speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be 
forgiven him ; but whosoever shall speak against 
the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, 
neither in this world [marg., " age ' ], nor in that 
which is to come." 

The parallel passage in Mark is as follows : 
" Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be 
forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blas- 
phemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme : 
but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy 
Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an 
eternal sin : because they said, He hath an un- 
clean spirit ' ' (chap, iii, 28-30. Compare 1 John 
v, 16. I do not take it that Heb. vi, 4-8 ; x, 
26-29, is the same sin.) 

Evidently these two passages, being parallel 
accounts of the same conversation of our Lord, 
have the same meaning, and cast light upon 
each other. We have in them two negative 
statements of the most conclusive character. In 
Mark the Greek is ova tx eL cicpeotv elg rbv al&va, dXXa 
evoxog torai al^viov dfiaprrjfxaro^. Says an able 
writer in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1889: 
" However plausibly it may be urged that aluvLog 
does not, in the Scripture references to a future 



14 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

life, mean l everlasting,' and that elg rovg al&vag 
does not really mean * forever/ no scholar will 
undertake to deny that ov — elg rovg al&vag is 
biblical Greek for an English emphatic, un- 
qualified never. The phrase has various forms 
(elg rbv al&va,) elg rovg al&vag, ecog al&vog, etc.), but 
they are all combinations of the noun al6v with 
some preposition and with a foregoing negative. 
It always, so far as I have noted, both in the 
Septuagint and in the New Testament, answers 
either to the English ' not — forever/ or to l never/ 
In the former case it denies permanence or future 
perpetuity to that which already exists or is con- 
ceived as existing ; for example, Job vii, 16, ov 
yap elg rbv al&va ^r\ao\iai^ i for I shall not live for- 
ever/ Psa. ciii, 9, ova elg reXog dpyioOrjoerai, ovde elg 
rbv alcova \Lr\viei, i He will not be always angry, 
neither will he be wrathful forever.* But in the 
majority of instances in biblical Greek it is 
equivalent to never, when used not with reference 
to the past (for example, John vii, 46, ovdeirore 
tXdXrjoev ovrog dvdponog, \ Never man so spake '), 
nor to the present (for example, 1 Cor. xiii, 8, 
rj dydnr] ovdeirore murei, ' Love never faileth'), but 
to the future, as in John iv, 14, ' But whosoever 
drinketh/ etc., ' shall never thirst ' (ov \ir\ 6i^r\oei elg 
rbv alCjva) ; I Cor. viii, 13, ' Wherefore if meat 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 15 

maketh my brother to stumble, I will never eat 
flesh' (R. V., ' eat no flesh for evermore ;' A. V., 
• eat no flesh while the world standeth '). It is 
further to be observed that while there are 
various other Greek words and phrases which 
answer to our emphatic future never, this of 
which we are speaking is one of the most 
frequent in the New Testament. In order to 
ascertain its meaning in Hellenistic Greek it is 
not necessary to fix the various significations of 
the term al&v, considered simply as a substantive ; 
the phrase is one concerning which no doubt, at 
least in the majority of passages, can be raised. 
Now this is the term which we find in that im- 
pressive warning of our Saviour to his antago- 
nists recorded in Mark iii, 29, ' But whosoever 
shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath 
never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal 
sin ' (ovre z%ei acpeoiv elg rbv al&va, aXXa evo%6g eonv 
alcjviov dfjLapTrjfiarog). In this one passage, at least, 
we are compelled to recognize an unequivocal, 
emphatic, absolute never" 

Likewise, whatever the phrase ovre ev tovtco tg> 
al&vi ovre iv ra> \1iXX0vTi (" neither in this world, 
nor in that which is to come ") in Matthew may 
signify, in the way of inference, as to the possible 
restoration in another life of those who do not 



16 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

commit this sin, clearly for it there will be no 
forgiveness.* 

3. Rev. xx, 10-15 : " And the devil that de- 
ceived them was cast into the lake of fire and 
brimstone, where are also the beast and the false 
prophet ; and they shall be tormented day and 
night for ever and ever. 

" And I saw a great white throne, and him that 
sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the 
heaven fled away ; and there was found no place 
for them. And I saw the dead, the great and 
the small, standing before the throne ; and books 



* Some (among them Dorner) try to evade the force of this 
argument by suggesting that, while the sin against the Holy 
Ghost hath never forgiveness, yet the penalty may come to an 
end, and restoration even in this case take place. Well might it 
be asked, in view of interpretations of this character frequently 
found in the writings of Universalists, " whether there is any 
way, in which Almighty God could have expressed it [the 
eternity of punishment], which they would have accepted as 
meaning it." Besides, in this case some would be saved without 
the atonement. Their salvation would be by paying the 
penalty, not through Christ. Exegesis that is put to such shifts 
may well be regarded unsound. 

Dorner suggests, also, that " the passages concerning the sin 
against the Holy Ghost say nothing of definite persons who have 
committed this sin. Of themselves, therefore, they leave the 
question unanswered, what men, and whether any men, reach 
this final goal of criminality, which is set before the eyes as a 
warning. Just so the Revelation of John does not say who, or 
that a man will be cast into the lake of fire ; the hypothetical 
form is rather chosen : ' If one is not inscribed in the book of 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 17 

were opened : and another book was opened, 
which is the book of life : and the dead were 
judged out of the things which were written in 
the books, according to their works. And the 
sea gave up the dead which were in it ; and death 
and Hades gave up the dead which were in them : 
and they were judged every man according to 
their works. And death and Hades were cast 
into the lake of fire. This is the second death, 
even the lake of fire. And if any was not found 
written in the book of life, he -was cast into the 
lake of fire.' (Compare Rev. xiv, 9-11; xix, 
20 ; xxi, 8.) 

Whatever there may be that is figurative in 

life,' 'if one worships the beast, he shall drink the cup of wrath,' 
all which affirms nothing of persons, but of the principle." But 
this, likewise, is a pure evasion of the solemn teaching contained 
in these passages of Scripture. 

Since writing the last paragraph of this note we have met still 
another device, equally untenable, by which the fearful import 
of this passage is sought to be avoided. It seeks to show that 
44 deliverance " from this sin may possibly be had through repent- 
ance {Unto the Uttermost, James M. Campbell, p. 125). We 
would ask : (1) Is there deliverance from any sin except through 
repentance ? And if not, wherein, on this supposition, lies the 
difference between the sin against the Holy Ghost and the sin 
against the "Son of man?" (2) Is this compatible with the 
words " it shall not be forgiven him [not ' so long as he con- 
tinues in an unyielding, unrepentant state,' but plainly], neither 
in this world, nor in that which is to come?" (3) What is 
"deliverance" from this sin without forgiveness, which shall 
never be exercised ? 
2 



18 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

these verses, if they mean any thing the follow- 
ing points are clear: (i) The devil is to be cast 
into the lake of fire, and his punishment is to 
last " for ever and ever/' (2) After the resurrec- 
tion the dead are to be judged il according to 
their works." (3) Those whose names are not 
found written in the book of life are to be cast 
into the lake of fire. 

Taken in connection with Matt, xxv, 31-46, the 
evidence for the endlessness of the punishment 
of the wicked furnished here becomes as convinc- 
ing as language can very well make it.* 

4. Mark ix, 43-48 : " And if thy hand cause 
thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee 
to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy 
two hands to go into hell, into the unquencha- 
ble fire. And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, 
cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life 

* If the reader will carefully compare the two passages he 
will be impressed with the following points of agreement and 
parallel: I. Both concern the general judgment. 2. The res- 
urrection is in both passages represented as having taken place. 
3. Those whose names were not found written in the book of 
life (the " goats " of Matthew) were cast into the lake of fire pre- 
pared for the devil and his angels (Matt., verse 41 ; Rev., verses 10, 
15). 4. The two phrases, ^aaaviadrjaovrai . . . elg rovg aluvag 
ro)i> aiG)vo)v (Rev., verse 10) and nolaocv al6viov (Matt., verse 46), 
seem to be identical in signification. The force of this last parallel 
will be felt in connection with the general parallel of the entire 
passages. 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 19 

halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast 
into hell. And if thine eye cause thee to stum- 
ble, cast it out : it is good for thee to enter into 
the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than 
having two eyes to be cast into hell ; where their 
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." 
(Compare Matt, iii, 12; v, 29, 30; xviii, 8, 9.) 

In connection with this passage two points of 
interest demand brief attention : (1) The first is 
concerning the word " hell." The alternate 
reading in the margin of the Revised Version is 
" Gehenna.' This word (yeevva) comes from the 
Hebrew D3H ^ (ge hinnom), literally, " valley of 
Hinnom.' (Some would translate " valley of 
lamentation.") The valley of Hinnom, also 
called Hpi (" Topheth "), once a beautiful valley, 
became the place of the worship of the fire-god 
Molech, to whom human sacrifices were offered. 
After Josiah " defiled the place, " that no man 
might make his son or his daughter to pass 
through the fire to Molech," it became the place 
w 7 here the bodies of criminals, the carcasses of 
animals, and all manner of filth were cast. Here, 
literally, the worm never died, and to prevent 
pestilence a fire was kept burning perpetually. 
From these facts the place became the symbol 
of the place of future punishment, the latter 



20 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

receiving the name of the former. And so in the 
time of Christ Gehenna was every-where among 
the Jews understood to signify the place of tor- 
ment in Sheol, or Hades. (See Word Studies in 
the New Testament, Marvin R. Vincent, vol. i, 
page 40, and Greek-English Lexicon of the New 
Testament, Thayer, page in.) (2) In verse 43 is 
the expression " unquenchable fire ' (to nvp to 
dofieoTov) ; in verse 48, " and the fire is not 
quenched " (teal to rrvp ov ofievvvTaC). In the par- 
allel account in Matt, xviii, 8, 9, the expression 
is to nvp to dtioviov, " the eternal fire." These 
expressions, remembered in connection with 
other teachings of Christ, furnish terrible proof 
of the reality of the doctrine we are considering. 

It avails nothing to say that they do not 
" necessarily ' teach endless suffering. Alone 
they may not be thought sufficient to prove the 
doctrine, but in the light of other sayings of 
Christ thev have no doubtful meaning. 

5. Matt, xxvi, 24: "The Son of man goeth, 
even as it is written of him : but woe unto that 
man through whom the Son of man is betrayed ! 
good were it for that man if he had not been 
born." 

This passage never could have been uttered 
by Christ with the knowledge in this case of 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 21 

final restoration ; for if Judas is to be saved 
some time in the future, no matter how far dis- 
tant the day may be, he will still have an eter- 
nity of blessedness reserved for him, and in view 
of this, despite the long season of punishment, it 
could only be said : " It was good for him that 
he was born/' No amount of temporal punish- 
ment can outweigh the " good of eternal life.* 
6. Jude 5—16 : " Now I desire to put you in 
remembrance, though ye know all things once 
for all, how that the Lord, having saved a people 
out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed 
them that believed not. And angels which kept 
not their own principality, but left their proper 
habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds 
under darkness unto the judgment of the great 
day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities 
about them, having in like manner with these 
given themselves over to fornication, and gone 
after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, 
suffering the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in 
like manner these also in their dreamings defile 
the flesh, and set at naught dominion, and rail 
at dignities. But Michael the archangel, when 

* The argument here is only an inference, we know, but it is 
nevertheless very strong. Dorner calls it the " strongest " on 
the orthodox side. 



22 FUTURE RETRIBUTION'. 

contending with the devil he disputed about the 
body of Moses, durst not bring against him a 
railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke 
thee. But these rail at whatsoever things they 
know not: and what they understand natu- 
rally, like the creatures without reason, in these 
things are they destroyed. Woe unto them ! for 
they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously 
in the error of Baalam for hire, and perished in 
the gainsaying of Korah. These are they who 
are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they 
feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed 
themselves ; clouds without water, carried along 
by winds ; autumn trees without fruit, twice 
dead, plucked up by the roots ; wild waves of 
the sea, foaming out their own shame ; wander- 
ing stars, for whom the blackness of darkness 
hath been reserved forever. And to these also 
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, say- 
ing, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands 
of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, 
and to convict all the ungodly of all their works 
of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, 
and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners 
have spoken against him. These are murmur- 
ers, complainers, walking after their lusts (and 
their mouth speaketh great swelling words), 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 23 

showing respect of persons for the sake of ad- 
vantage." (Compare 2 Pet. ii.) 

In this passage several things are given : (i) 
The Israelites who believed not, and the angels 
"which kept not their own principality/' and the 
inhabitants of the cities of the plain are exhib- 
ited as examples of suffering punishment for 
those of whom Jude is speaking. (2) Certain 
persons in the early Church are threatened with 
like punishment. (3) The Israelites were " de- 
stroyed (aTTcjXeaev) ; the angels " hath he kept 
in everlasting (aidiotg) bonds under darkness unto 
the judgment of the great day;" Sodom and the 
neighboring cities " are set forth as an example, 
suffering the punishment of eternal fire ' (nvpbg 
diovlov). The margin of the Revised Version 
has for the last, u as an example of eternal fire 
suffering punishment. " For the wicked ones of 
whom Jude writes has been reserved the " black- 
ness of darkness ! " forever ' (slg al&va). 

Does Jude mean to teach the same punish- 
ment in all these cases under different language ? 
Is the " destruction of the Israelites, and the 
" reservation ' of the angels, and the " suffering " 
of the Sodomites, and the " blackness of dark- 
ness forever " reserved for those of whom he 
writes, the same punishment in each case? Our 



24 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

answer to this cannot be dogmatic. The case of 
the cities of the plain is made uncertain by the 
alternate reading. Perhaps, following the mar- 
ginal reading, the temporal destruction of these 
cities is referred to as illustrative only of future 
punishment. Following the text, it might seem 
that their eternal punishment is involved. In 
the case of the Israelites who believed not, we 
suppose their temporal destruction (Num. xiv, 
especially verses 1 1, 29, 32) is referred to. 
Whether or not more is involved in this case 
also we do not undertake to say. As to the 
angels, no doubt can be entertained as to the 
reference. They are in some sense bound, and 
in this condition await the judgment. As to 
their fate at and after the judgment, other Script- 
ures tell us (Rev. xx, 10; Matt, xxv, 41). The 
fate of the last class can be no other than that 
spoken of elsewhere concerning the wicked ; and 
when it is thus associated with the end of the 
lost angels, * the meaning can only be the same 
as that taught elsewhere in the New Testament. 
This we have seen, and will further see, is ever- 
lasting punishment. 

* We call attention again to the fact that the end of 
devils and wicked men is the same in the New Testament. 
(Compare Rev. xx, 10, 15, with Matt, xxv, 41. ) 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 25 

7. There is a passage that is frequently quoted 
to prove the final restoration of the lost, but 
that is so manifestly in favor of the doctrine of 
eternal punishment that we place it here among 
the proofs of the doctrine. It will be considered 
more fully, however, when we come to notice 
the arguments advanced in favor of Univer- 
salism. The passage we refer to is 1 Cor. xv, 
24-26 : 

u Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver 
up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when 
he shall have abolished all rule and all authority 
and power. For he must reign, till he hath put 
all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy 
that shall be abolished is death/' 

The points to be noted are : (1) The end of 
the mediatorial reign of Christ follows the de- 
struction of the " last enemy,' and (2) the last 
enemy to be abolished is physical death at and 
by the resurrection. Now, remember in connec- 
tion with this, that the coming (parousia) of 
Christ and the resurrection are follozved by the 
judgment (Matt, xxv, 31 ; Rev. xx, 12-14; xxii, 
IO-12), and that, according to Matt, xxv, 31-46, 
and other Scriptures, the " aeonian punishment ' 
is pronounced after the " last enemy," death, 
has been abolished, and the passage furnishes 



26 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

an argument for eternal punishment that is un- 
answerable. 

We urge thes£ facts as worthy all considera- 
tion. If the " last enemy'' to be abolished is 
physical death, and the fcoXaotg di&vioq of Matthew 
follows this destruction, then the thought of the 
" second death " being abolished is absolutely 
excluded, The last enemy is abolished in the 
resurrection, and before the \c6Xaoiq aluvtog, or 6 
ddvarog 6 devrepog, is awarded. (Compare also 
John v, 28, 29.) 

8. Another proof of the endlessness of future 
punishment is furnished in those passages of 
Scripture which reveal what Dr. Tayler Lewis 
appropriately calls the " aspect of finality." In 
Lange's Commentary on Ecclesiastes he says : 
" It may be thought that this view of D?iy and 
alcjv as having plurals, and therefore not in them- 
selves denoting absolute endlessness, or infinity 
of time, must weaken the force of certain pas- 
sages in the New Testament, especially of that 
most solemn sentence, Matt, xxv, 46. This, 
however, comes from a wrong view of what con- 
stitutes the real power of the impressive lan- 
guage there employed. The preacher, in con- 
tending with the Universalist, or Restorationist, 
would commit an error, and, it may be, suffer a 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 27 

failure in his argument should he lay the whole 
stress of it on the etymological or historical sig- 
nificance of the words, alriv, aluviog, and attempt 
to prove that, of themselves, they necessarily 
carry the meaning of endless duration. There 
is another method by which the conclusion is 
reached in a much more impressive and cavil- 
silencing manner. It is by insisting on that 
dread aspect of finality that appears not in 
single words merely, but in the power and 
vividness of the language taken as a whole ' 
(page 48). 

Some of the passages that have this " dread 
aspect " are the following : 

'* Let both grow together until the harvest : 
and in the time of the harvest I will say to the 
reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them 
in bundles to burn them : but gather the wheat 
into my barn " (Matt, xiii, 30). 

" Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto 
a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered 
of every kind : which, when it was filled, they 
drew up on the beach ; and they sat down, and 
gathered the good into vessels, but the bad they 
cast away. So shall it be in the end of the 
world : the angels shall come forth, and sever 
the wicked from among the righteous, and shall 



28 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

cast them into the furnace of fire : there shall be 
the weeping and gnashing of teeth ' (Matt, xiii, 

47-50). 

" But when the king came in to behold the 
guests, he saw there a man which had not on a 
wedding-garment : and he saith unto him, Friend, 
how earnest thou in hither not having a wedding- 
garment ? And he was speechless. Then the 
king said to the servants, Bind him hand and 
foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness ; 
there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth ' 
(Matt, xxii, 11-13). 

" Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened 
unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and 
went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five 
of them were foolish, and five were wise. For 
the foolish, when they took their lamps, took 
no oil with them : but the wise took oil in their 
vessels with their lamps. Now while the bride- 
groom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. But 
at midnight there is a cry, Behold, the bride- 
groom ! Come ye forth to meet him. Then 
all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 
And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of 
your oil ; for our lamps are going out. But the 
wise answered, saying, Peradventure there will 
not be enough for us and you : go ye rather to 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 29 

them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And 
while they went away to buy, the bridegroom 
came ; and they that were ready went in with 
him to the marriage feast : and the door was 
shut. Afterward come also the other virgins, 
saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered 
and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. 
Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor 
the hour " (Matt, xxv, 1-13).* 

" For it is as when a man, going into another 
country, called his own servants, and delivered 

* An interesting piece of " wriggling," to use one of Mr. Dar- 
win's terms, of the exegetical type, is given in remarks on this 
parable by C. A. Row {Future Retribution}. He comments 
thus : " The virgins who came prepared with a sufficient supply 
of oil for their lamps enter at once with the bridegroom into the 
marriage feast, on which the door is shut. Afterward the five 
foolish ones, having obtained the necessary supply of oil, pray 
that the door might be opened to give them admittance, but the 
bridegroom replies that he knows them not. The moral of the 
parable is drawn by our Lord himself: ' Watch, therefore, for 
ye know not the day nor the hour.' Nothing is said respecting 
the subsequent fate of the foolish virgins, who are described as 
returning after they had procured the necessary supply of oil, 
except that, notwithstanding their earnest entreaties, they were 
excluded from the marriage feast. The advice given them to 
purchase the needful oil, and the fact that they succeeded in 
doing so, proves that it is impossible to erect a dogma on the 
mere imagery of a parable " (pages 260, 261). It might be per- 
missible, following this eminent example, to suggest that per- 
haps the virgins went into the marriage feast after it was over! 
Exegesis of this type is no doubt edifying to a certain class of 
writers. 



30 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

unto them his goods. And unto one he gave 
five talents, to another two, to another one ; to 
each according to his several ability ; and he 
went on his journey. Straightway he that re- 
ceived the five talents went and traded with 
them, and made other five talents. In like man- 
ner he also that received the two gained other two. 
But he that received the one went away and 
digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. 
Now after a long time the lord of those servants 
cometh, and maketh a reckoning with them. 
And he that received the five talents came and 
brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou 
deliveredst unto me five talents : lo, I have 
gained other five talents. His lord said unto 
him, Well done, good and faithful servant : 
thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will 
set thee over many things : enter thou into the 
joy of thy lord. And he also that received the 
two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst 
unto me two talents : lo, I have gained other 
two talents. His lord said unto him, Well done, 
good and faithful servant ; thou hast been faith- 
ful over a few things, I will set thee over many 
things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. And 
he also that had received the one talent came 
and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 31 

man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and 
gathering where thou didst not scatter: and I 
was afraid, and went away and hid thy talent in 
the earth : lo, thou hast thine own. But his 
lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked 
and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap 
where I sowed not, and gather where I did not 
scatter ; thou oughtest therefore to have put 
my money to the bankers, and at my coming 
I should have received back mine own with in- 
terest. Take ye away therefore the talent from 
him, and give it unto him that hath the ten tal- 
ents. For unto every one that hath shall be 
given, and he shall have abundance : but from 
him that hath not, even that which he hath 
shall be taken away. And cast ye out the un- 
profitable servant into the outer darkness : there 
shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth ' 
(Matt, xxv, 14-30). 

" For what doth it profit a man, to gain the 
whole world, and forfeit his life ? For what 
should a man give in exchange for his life ? 
(Mark viii, 36, 37). 

" And beside all this, between us and you there 
is a great gulf fixed, that they which would pass 
from hence to you may not be able, and that none 
may cross over from thence to us " (Luke xvi, 26). 



32 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

" He said therefore again unto them, I go away, 
and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sin : 
whither I go, ye cannot come " (John viii, 21). 

And verse 24 : "I said therefore unto you, 
that ye shall die in your sins : for except ye be- 
lieve that 1 am he, ye shall die in your sins/ 

" For the land which hath drunk the rain that 
cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet 
for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receiv- 
eth blessing from God : but if it beareth thorns 
and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse; 
whose end is to be burned " (Heb. vi, 7, 8). 

" For if we sin willfully after that we have 
received the knowledge of the truth, there 
remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a 
certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a 
fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversa- 
ries " (Heb. x, 26, 27). 

In view of all such passages, is it not surprising 
that some will persist in reading into the Script- 
ures the delusive hope of final restoration?* 

* This argument Whiton (Is Eternal Punishment Endless ? 
p. 33), thinks is the " strongest apparent implication of the end- 
lessness of future punishment." He says further: "All such pas- 
sages readily favor the doctrine of the endlessness of that state 
to which they refer," and saves himself from the positive doc- 
trine by concluding: "The endlessness of future punishment is 
not the only theory that will agree with the language of despair 
which the texts now before us employ" (p. 34). 



THE ETERNITY OE PUNISHMENT, 33 

9. The doctrine we are considering is still 
further proved by those passages of Scripture 
which promise certain final blessings to the 
righteous only. For example, the " righteous ' 
are to go into " eternal life ' (Matt, xxv, 46). 
Now, if the wicked are to be finally restored, 
after an indefinite aeonian punishment, they, too, 
will at some time go into aeonian life. But is not 
this excluded by the very designation of the 
righteous as the inheritors of this privilege? 
Again, he that " overcometh " is to " eat of the 
tree of life " (Rev. ii, 7). Shall we contradict the 
Scriptures and say whether or not men overcome 
they shall finally have right to the tree of life? 
Again, to the overcomer is the promise that his 
name shall not be blotted " out of the book of 
life " (Rev. iii, 5). Is it not a fair inference that 
those who do not overcome shall have their 
names blotted out ? Where is the right to 
assert that they shall again be inserted after 
ages of punishment? Once more, to the perse- 
cuted followers of our Lord is the exhortation 
with promise, " Be thou faithful unto death, and 
I will give thee the crown of life ' (Rev. ii, 10). 
Are the unfaithful also, at some time, to wear the 
" crown of life? " 

Such passages of Scripture, with their exclu- 
3 



34 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

sive nature, fully warrant the inference we draw 
from them. They are clear cases of the law 
in logic known as the " exclusive ' proposition. 
To say, " Some men are honest," involves 
the inference that some are not honest. So 
when the Scriptures designate a certain class 
as subjects of the divine promises and rewards, 
by necessary inference the opposite class is ex- 
cluded from the same privileges. (Examine 
also John iii, 15, 16; iv, 13, 14; vi, 47, 54-58, 
etc.) 

10. Another proof of the everlastingness of 
the wicked's doom is furnished in those Script- 
ures which are by some used to teach the doc- 
trine of annihilation. Concerning this doctrine 
we have something to say further on (chap. vii). 
For the present we simply affirm that all such 
passages preclude the idea of final restoration. 
We give a few examples : 

" For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die ' 
(ji?X\ete anodvrjOKELv) (Rom. viii, 13). " The wages 
of sin is death ' (ddvarog) (Rom. vi, 23). " But 
rather fear him which is able to destroy {a-rroXeoai) 
both soul and body in hell " [marg., " Gehenna "] 
(Matt, x, 28). " For wide is the gate, and broad 
is the way, that leadeth to destruction (% rrjv 
airuXeiav) (Matt, vii, 13). " Who shall suffer pun- 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 35 

ishment, even eternal destruction [oXeOpov aiuviov) 
from the face of the Lord and from the glory of 
his might " (2 Thess. i, 9). " For he that soweth 
unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap cor- 
ruption (tydopav) ; but he that soweth unto the 
spirit shall of the spirit reap eternal life (Gal. 
vi, 8). 

On this subject Edward White, who himself 
teaches the doctrine of annihilation, says : 
" Surely these are not the words {airuXeia, 
Odvarog, etc.) which would naturally occur to a 
writer desiring to convey the idea of universal 
salvation." Again : " As a theory to be estab- 
lished by criticism, Universalism is based on 
special pleading ; while as a delusive prospect to 
be set before mankind it is likely, as recent 
American experience has shown, to ruin innu- 
merable souls, who will neglect the ' day ' of 
salvation for the ' fool's to-morrow/ which never 
arrives ' [Life in Christ, pp. 446, 448). Also, 
another writer, who teaches the doctrine of an- 
nihilation, although from a different stand-point 
from that of Mr. White, says : " The Universal- 
ist endeavors to evade this [the writer's conclu- 
sion of annihilation] by affirming that when the 
Scriptures threaten the finally impenitent with 
destruction, or some kindred term, the thing 



36 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

intended is the destruction of the sin, but the re- 
covery of the sinner/' He thinks the principle 
of interpretation which assigns to such terms 
this construction " non-natural/* and says : 
" Surely it is a mode of dealing with language 
which no one would adopt, unless compelled by 
the exigencies of a theory ' (C. A. Row, ut 
supra, pp. 386, 387). 

We concur with these writers thus far, and 
affirm that these passages utterly preclude the 
idea of final universal restoration. 

1 1. Again, we find proof of the doctrine in the 
many passages which assert an unqualified nega- 
tive in relation to the lot of the wicked. This 
appears in several of the passages already given ; 
but we repeat one or two here and add others in 
order to give the proper emphasis to this im- 
portant thought. " But whosoever shall speak 
against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven 
him ' (Matt, xii, 32). " Ye shall seek me, and 
shall die in your sin : whither I go, ye cannot 
come " (John viii, 21). Other Scriptures that 
have not been given are : " For I say unto you, 
that none of those men which were bidden shall 
taste of my supper ' (Luke xiv, 24), and " He 
that believeth on the Son hath eternal life ; but 
he that, obeyeth [marg., ' believeth' not the Son 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 37 

shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth 
on him " (John Hi, 36). 

All such passages unqualifiedly preclude the 
hope of life for those included in their intent. 

12. Another proof is given in the fact that 
the duration of the future punishment of the 
wicked is expressed in the same terms as the 
duration of the life of the righteous, and in the 
same phrases as are used concerning the Al- 
mighty. This is seen not only in the use of the 
single adjective alGjviog as above given (Matt, 
xxv, 46), but in such phrases as elg aldtva, elg rovg 
al&vag tgjv oXgjvgjv. Examples are as follows : 
" He that eateth this bread shall live forever " 
(elg rbv altiva) (John vi, 58). " To whom be the 
glory for ever and ever ' (elg Tovg alCjvag tgjv 
clIgjvgjv) (Gal. i, 5). " Now unto the king eternal 
(tgjv clIgjvgjv), incorruptible, invisible, the only 
God, be honor and glory for ever and ever " (elg 
rovg alojvag tgjv aiojVGJv) (1 Tim. i, 1 7). " For 
whom the blackness of darkness hath been re- 
served forever " (elg altiva) (Jude 13). " To him 
be the glory and the dominion for ever and 
ever ' (elg Tovg altbvag tgjv gligjvgjv) (Rev. i, 6). 
" And I was dead, and behold, I am alive for ever- 
more ' (elg Tovg aiGJvag tgjv (iIgjvgjv) (ibid., verse 18). 
" Unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto 



38 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and 
the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever* 
(ei<; rovg altivag tgjv alcjvcjv) {ibid., v, 13). " And 
the devil that deceived them was cast into the 
lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the 
beast and the false prophet ; and they shall be 
tormented day and night for ever and ever" (elg 
rovg aluvaq Tcbv al6vo)v) (ibid., xx, 10). Language 
could not more plainly declare the doctrine we 
teach. 

13. The disproof of universal restoration, and 
thus indirectly the proof of eternal punishment, 
may be further shown by the disproof of the as- 
sertion, so often made, that the future punish- 
ment of the New Testament is represented as 
remedial. It is nowhere referred to as such, but 
the reverse. 

We mention this point simply in this place, 
and reserve the refutation of the pleasing error 
for a subsequent chapter. 

14. Another argument in favor of the doctrine 
of endless punishment is found in the fact that 
the life of man is divided, according to the New 
Testament, into but two "ages," or "aeons/ 
and that in connection with the " age to come ' 
(aiojv \izXku)v) the forgiveness of sin is excluded. 
This point was involved in another already given ; 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT 39 

but in order to give the greater force* to it, we 
present it here in a separate and explicit state- 
ment. 

That the fact is as stated the Scriptures 
abundantly testify (Matt, xii, 32 ; xiii, 22 ; Mark 
iv, 19 ; x, 30; Luke xx, 35; Gal. i, 4; Eph. i, 
21; ii, 7; 1 Tim. vi, 17; Tit. 2, 12). If the 
reader will examine these passages, he will find 
several phrases, 6 alijv ovroq, 6 aldjv, 6 vvv aluv, 6 
eveorcjg alcjv y used to signify the present life, and 
several others, ali)v \ieXX(i)v, 6 aluv ttcelvog, 6 aicjv 6 
epXOfievog, oi al&veg ol tirepxoiievoi, to signify the 
life to come ; and that the one set of phrases 
refers to the time before the advent (parousia) 
and the other to the time subsequent to that 
event.* 

*Dr. W. E. Manly, to whom reference has been made, in 
his article in the Arena for April, 1890, seeks to prove that 
alcjv fie'A?,G)v in the New Testament, and the kindred phrases, re- 
fer to the Christian age about to be inaugurated in contradis- 
tinction to the Jewish age in which Christ and the apostles 
labored before the overthrow of the Jewish nation (A. D. 70). It 
is sufficient to say in response to this writer, and to all who 
teach the same doctrine from whatever stand-point, (1) That 
on this supposition one passage of Scripture, at least, is ren- 
dered both false and absurd. " And Jesus said unto them, The 
sons of this world (alcbvog rovrov) marry, and are given in mar- 
riage : but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that 
world (altivoc kneivov) and the resurrection from the dead, neither 
marry, nor are given in marriage : for neither can they die any 
more : for they are equal unto the angels ; and are sons of God, 



40 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

15. Lastly, the fact that future restoration is 
not revealed in the Bible, and particularly in 
view of the facts already given, is probable proof 
of the endlessness of future punishment. This 
we think important. Some of the chief writers 
on the subject of restoration freely admit that 
the dogma is not revealed. Thus Farrar, how- 
ever much he may contradict himself elsewhere, 
distinctly disavows being a Universalist : " But 
however deep may be our desire that this [univer- 
sal restoration] should be the will of God ; how- 
ever beautifully it may seem to accord both 
with his mercy and his justice, that sin, after 
bringing its own punishment, should be turned 
to holiness, and so forgiven ; however much we 
may cling to the hope that some such meaning 
may underlie the broad and boundless promises 
of a future restitution, — I dare not lay down any 
dogma of Universalism ; partly because it is not 



being sons of the resurrection " (Luke xx, 34-36). (2) That 
11 this age," in the language of Christ, did not refer to the Jew- 
ish age, but to the Christian dispensation already begun. This 
is shown by the use of the phrase in connection with several of 
the parables. For example, in reference to the "good seed" 
and the " tares" it is said, "Let both grow together until the 
harvest," and " the harvest is the end of the world " (ovvrfketa 
aitivoc;). Now this parable was spoken of u the kingdom of 
heaven," which corresponds with the Christian age (Matt, xiii, 
24, 30, 39. See also same chap., ver. 22.) 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 41 

clearly revealed to us, and partly because it is 
impossible for us to estimate the hardening ef- 
fect of obstinate persistence in evil, and the 
power of the human will to resist the law and 
reject the love of God ' (Preface to Eternal 
Hope, p. xvi, et passim, and in his later book, 
Mercy and Judgment), It is for him an " eter- 
nal hope," whatever that expression may mean. 
Whiton as distinctly disclaims any clear revela- 
tion as to restoration. He says : " The conclu- 
sion reached by this essay is, in general, that of 
nescience, namely, that the Bible, while teaching 
future punishment in terms sufficiently explicit 
and severe for the purposes of moral govern- 
ment, does not positively declare the duration 
of that punishment. An unbiased criticism by 
the best light that modern scholarship affords 
does not accept the sense which tradition has 
attached to some of the words of Scripture upon 
this subject. The Bible, however, reveals no 
restoration of ' the lost.' It casts no ray of 
hope upon the future of him who has wasted the 
present life ' {Is Eternal PunisJiment Endless ? 
p. xii of the Introduction). So, also, Martensen : 
" We only maintain that this solution [of what 
he calls an ' antinomy ' in the Scriptures, accord- 
ing to which some passages seem to teach end- 



42 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

less punishment and others restoration] is no- 
where expressly given; and we ask whether we 
may not recognize divine wisdom in the fact 
that a final solution is not given us, while we 
are still in the stream of time and in the course 
of development ? [Christian Dogmatics, p. 
476.) Likewise Dorner : " i\ccordingly, this 
hypothesis also [annihilationism] cannot lay 
claim to unreserved acknowledgment and dog- 
matic authority, and we must be content with 
saying that the ultimate fate of individuals re- 
mains veiled in mystery, as well as whether all 
will attain the blessed goal or not ' {System 
of Christian Doctrine, vol. iv, p. 427). 

Now we maintain that this silence, in view of 
the fact that the language of Scripture seems, to 
say the least, to teach the endlessness of pun- 
ishment, is probable proof of that doctrine. We 
maintain this for the following reasons : 

1. In view of the great amount and force of 
the evidence apparently for the doctrine in the 
Scriptures, if it is not true we are practically de- 
ceived. Martensen, in the quotation above, in- 
timates that God needed to let us remain in 
doubt for our good. It amounts to saying that 
God needed to so speak to us in his word as to 
deceive us for our good, and is practically saying, 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 43 

" God does evil that good may come of it " — 
Jesuit ethics hardly compatible with the divine 
character ! 

We readily grant that God can, consistently 
with his character, and does, reserve many 
things among the secrets of his counsel and 
ways ; but this is very different from so reveal- 
ing a doctrine as to cause it to deceive.* Shall 
the truth of God abound through his lie ? " God 
forbid/' The thought is dishonoring to God, and 
there is no alternative but to accept the doctrine 
as it appears, and has always appeared, to those 
who were willing to receive the manifest, and not 
some forced, interpretation of the divine Word. 

2. May it not be said that if it were not so 
Christ would have told us, as he said concerning 
another matter, on the eve of his departure ? 
(John xiv, I.) This seems inevitable unless we 
are ready to accept the conclusion above drawn. 

3. Uncertainty is practical certainty of resto- 
ration. This is so true that even those writers 



* This is manifest, not only from what the above writers say, 
but also from the almost universal belief of Christendom in all 
the ages. Surely, if for eighteen centuries the Christian world 
has been persuaded of this doctrine, and the doctrine is not 
true, their deception is not surprising, and especially when the 
best that negative scholarship can do to-day is to claim a posi- 
tion of nescience or agnosticism. 



44 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

who claim to be agnostics on the subject cherish 
such a large hope as to allay all alarm ; and the 
hope they express is in many quarters proving 
an effective anaesthetic to many willing souls. 
The uncertainty of such writers is only verbal ; 
the whole tenor and drift of their arguments is 
toward certainty of restoration. While Farrar 
disclaims Universalism, he nevertheless teaches 
it. Dr. Pusey points out this inconsistency in 
Farrar. He says: " It is difficult for another to 
understand the difference between a ' dog-ma* 
of Universalism' which the author ' dares not 
lay down/ and ' a hope' which is also * a doc- 
trine ; ' 4 a truth/ 'truths, which have been dis- 
placed by groundless opinions, and which are 
necessary for the purity, almost for the very ex- 
istence, of that faith which is the one sole hope 
of the suffering world ; ! ' a doctrine which alone 
can stem the spread of infidelity;' essential to 
thinking 'noble thoughts of God' {What is 
of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment ? p. 26). 

* A favorite device with many in the Church who teach what 
is contrary to the Scriptures is to shield themselves by claiming 
not to teach ''dogma," but to hold "opinion." Witness the 
Andover heresy. It may be a legitimate thing to hold specula- 
tive opinions about non-essentials not revealed ; but not so con- 
cerning such facts as probation and punishment, so essential 
and clearly revealed. 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 45 

Thus, too, Whiton, whose positive assumptions 
are so modest as almost to disarm opposition, 
says: "But if any reader be inclined to com- 
plain, after reading this essay, that it has added 
nothing to things previously known, the writer 
would remind him that it is often as serviceable 
to the cause of truth to define the limits of our 
knowledge as to extend them. To be assured 
what one is not required to believe is often help- 
ful to a doubt-encompassed soul, and vital to its 
victory in the conflict between faith and unbe- 
lief. Ignorant must he be of the phases of re- 
ligious experience who does not know that in 
this way many a struggling swimmer may be 
lightened of a weight that threatens to engulf 
him in the depths of infidelity ' (Is "Eternal' 
Punishment Endless ? p. xiii). Surely, if one is not 
required to believe the doctrine, and the doubt 
so necessary that " many a struggling swimmer 
may be lightened of a weight that threatens to 
engulf him in the depths of infidelity ' may be 
entertained, the result is, practically, restora- 
tionism, so far as faith is concerned. Clearly, 
the Bible cannot leave us in the doubt that be- 
gets such inconsistency. The fact is, there is no 
middle position, except in assertion, between 
belief of the doctrine and unbelief. The con- 



46 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

elusion is inevitable ; the doctrine is a terrible 
reality; and instead of in fact holding out a de- 
lusive hope under the modest assumption of 
"nescience," the doctrine should be proclaimed 
(if ever so unpleasant, as it must be to all who 
sincerely proclaim it), and all should take the 
.warning it involves. 

We have now completed a survey of all the 
leading evidence that we think can fairly be 
urged as furnishing ground for the doctrine. We 
might have given quotations from the Old Testa- 
ment ; but have not done so for the reason that we 
think Old Testament evidence is subsidiary and 
of secondary importance, and we have been giv- 
ing that which is primary and conclusive. We 
must read the Old Testament teaching in the 
light of the New. There are a few other points, 
however, that may be briefly mentioned as furnish- 
ing corroboration to the proof already adduced. 

I. The first point is that the Jews in Christ's 
day believed in the endlessness of the punish- 
ment of the wicked, so that speaking to his dis- 
ciples as Christ did they could not get any other 
impression from the unqualified language that he 
used. We do not mean to affirm that this was 
the only doctrine held by the Jews of Christ's 
time, but that it was held. Dr. Pusey says: 



THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT, 47 

"Belief in the eternity of future punishment is 
contained in the Book of Judith, in the fourth 
Book of Maccabees, in the so-called Psalms of 
Solomon : the second death is mentioned in the 
Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan : Josephus at- 
tests the belief of the Pharisees and the Essenes 
in the eternity of punishment' {What is of 
Faith, etc., p. 50). These books to which Dr. 
Pusey refers were written before or soon after 
the time of our Lord. So, also, Edersheim, who 
is a master in this field of research, concerning 
the teaching immediately before the time of 
Christ of the schools of Shammai and Hillel, 
says : " The former arranged all mankind into 
three classes : the perfectly righteous, who are 
1 immediately written and sealed to eternal life ; ' 
the perfectly wicked, who are ' immediately writ- 
ten and sealed to Gehenna;' and an interme- 
diate class, who i go down to Gehinnom, and 
moan, and come up again,' according to Zech. 
xiii, 9, and which seemed also indicated in cer- 
tain words in the song of Hannah (1 Sam. ii, 6). 
The careful reader will notice that this statement 
implies belief in eternal punishment on the part 
of the school of Shammai. For (1) the per- 
fectly wicked are spoken of as ' written and 
sealed unto Gehenna ; ' (2) the school of Sham- 



48 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

mai expressly quotes, in support of what it 
teaches about these wicked, Dan. xii, 2, a pas- 
sage which undoubtedly refers to the final judg- 
ment after the resurrection ; (3) the perfectly 
wicked, so punished, are expressly distinguished 
from the third, or intermediate class, who merely 
' go down to Gehinnom ' but are not ' written and 
sealed,' and ' come up again ' {Life and Times 
of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix to vol. ii, p. 792). 
Now, in view of this fact, how is it possible to un- 
derstand Christ's language on the subject (Matt. 
xxv, 46 ; Mark ix, 43-48, et a/.) with the hope of 
final restoration of all men to life and happiness? 
His listeners could not mistake his meaning.* 

2. The fact of endless punishment is con- 
firmed by the fact of the atonement. We say 
confirmed, not proved ; for conceivably Christ, 
in mercy, might have suffered and died to de- 
liver from the limited future punishment that is 
said, even by Restorationists,f to await the im- 

* If the reader desires further to examine the question pro 
and contra concerning the belief of the Jews on this subject, let 
him consult the recent works upon it, especially those of Pusey 
and Farrar (ut supra), and also the work of Dr. Love, Future 
Probation Examined, chap. vii. Also, Schiirer's The yewish 
People in the Time of yesus Christ, vol. ii, pp. 1 81-183. 

\ Many of these make the punishment of the wicked to last 
for "ages upon ages." We here take no account of the logical 
and theological inconsistency that attributes the salvation of 
men to Christ after the penalty. 



TH£ ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 49 

penitent in. the other World. 'But the endless- 
ness of future punishment more easily and fully 
explains the infinite sacrifice of Christ. 

3. So, also, the apparent need of the doctrine 
confirms the other evidence of its reality. The 
familiar saying that the " fear of hell peoples 
heaven 1 ' has some force, if not as much as is 
sometimes claimed for it. 

Are there not already signs of religious decay as 
a result of the decline of faith in this doctrine? 
Besides, the fact is that a decline of evangelical 
faith and religion has accompanied, and is to-day 
accompanying, the dissemination of this error. 
Universalism is of close kin to Unitarianism 
{History of Rationalism, by Bishop John F. 
Hurst, pp. 560, 561). On the other hand, the 
most aggressive Christian work has been, and is 
to-day being, done by the Churches that accept 
the doctrine, as, for example, witness our own 
Church. 

4. The last confirmatory argument that we 
give is the belief of the Church. Our claim for 
this is of the slightest character. Of itself it 
would amount to nothing; but in connection 
with the other facts given it is of some weight. 
We are not ready to say the great mass of Chris- 
tian believers, both before and since the Ref- 



50 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

ormation, have Been deceived on this subject, 
except in the light of the clearest proof. 

In conclusion, let it be said that the arguments 
presented corroborate and strengthen each oth- 
er, and that the entire force of the proof of this 
doctrine is not in the single points presented, 
however strong these may be, but in the com- 
bined strength of each and all together. When 
thus considered we do not see how, from ex- 
egetical considerations, the doctrine can be hon- 
estly denied. 



/ 



i4 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous 
sad, whom I have not made sad ; and strengthened the hands 
of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, 
by promising him life.' 1 — Ezek. xiii, 22. 

"Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, 
Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, 
prophesy deceits." — Isa. xxx, io. 



CHAPTER II. 

Objections and Arguments of Restorationists. 

f 'HE objections to the doctrine of future end- 
JL less retribution are said to be both rational 
and scriptural. We propose in the present place 
to notice the most important of these in this 
order, namely, (I) those that are urged from rea- 
son and (II) those that are accounted scriptural. 

I. Objections from Reason. 

i. First, under this category, is to be named 
the objection from justice. The objection in 
brief is as follows : God cannot be unjust, and 
he, therefore, cannot punish the wicked forever. 
It is seldom or never urged in this direct manner ; 
but, disrobed of all its rhetorical dress and made 
to stand clearly before the mind as it is, it is thus 
properly expressed. It has two wholly different 
propositions (with an enormous assumption for 
a minor premise) that need to be kept thoroughly 
apart in our thought or treatment of the subject. 
The first proposition — that God cannot be unjust 
— no one will dispute. We know this because 



54 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

of his character as revealed in his Word : " Right- 
eousness and judgment are the foundation of thy 
throne " (Psa. lxxxix, 14). " Righteous and true 
are thy ways, thou King of the ages ' ' (Rev. xv, 3). 
Nor is his justice based upon his might, but upon 
his character. God has a right to do as he pleases ; 
but, happily for us, he pleases to do the right. 
" God is love/' Upon his love is built his jus- 
tice. Neither is his justice some abstract, met- 
aphysical quality wholly unlike the same senti- 
ment in ourselves."* We fully accept the fact that 
God's sentiment of both justice and love is the 
same in kind as ours. The difference is in degree 
only. God is perfect and we imperfect. The 
same is true of all the corresponding attributes 
of each. 

The second proposition would be true only on 
the ground of the assumed truthfulness of the 
suppressed minor premise in the argument, 
namely, that it would be unjust in God to punish 
sin in this life with endless suffering. But, clearly, 

* Canon Row devotes much of his argument from reason against 
future endless punishment to the refutation of this false con- 
ception of the sentiment of justice in God, and to the refutation 
of the same view of the love of God. It is safe to say that this 
is the position of but few Christian writers, and that the Chris- 
tian Church has always accepted, with Dr. Row, the sameness 
in kind of the divine attributes with those of all moral intel- 
ligences. (See Row's Future Retribution, pp. 20-27.) 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 55 

this is the thing to be proved. Nor has any one 
done so, and for the manifest reason that it is 
beyond the range of proof. We are not familiar 
enough with the facts involved to be able ration- 
ally to decide the matter; and, in view of the 
manifest teaching of the Scriptures as to the 
endlessness of future punishment, it becomes us 
to " Stand in awe. and sin not." The question 
is not one of justice, but of knowledge; and, 
clearly, we are not in the position to know the 
guilt and necessary punishment of sin. Omnis- 
cience alone is equal to such knowledge, and the 
knowledge can become ours not by insight, but 
alone by revelation. What the revelation is we 
have seen in the foregoing chapter. 

We venture a few remarks that may throw 
some light upon this subject : 

(1) The guilt and necessary punishment of sin 
are to be viewed in the light of man's greatness 
and responsibility as revealed in the Bible. If 
man is simply a highly developed animal, with no 
more or little more freedom than the intelligent 
brute, then the matter of eternal guilt and pun- 
ishment is clearly untenable ; but if as to his 
spirit man has the " image of God," as is taught 
in the Scriptures, and is a free moral agent in 
any proper sense of the phrase, then, clearly, 



56 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

eternal guilt and eternal punishment, in view of 
the necessity of the latter, are not contradictory 
or absurd. Man's greatness has something to do 
with his eternal guilt in deliberate sin. 

It is to be observed that all Restorationists 
more or less excuse man's guilt. 

(2) Further light is thrown upon this subject 
in view of the fact that sin is committed against 
God. We are not prepared to affirm, with Dr. 
Shedd, that sin against an infinite being must 
have infinite guilt. We have no knowledge of 
the Infinite and of sin to justify us in such an 
assumption. But we are prepared to say simply 
that sinning against God adds culpability to our 
sin. For the rest we can adopt the words of the 
eminent author just referred to : " To torture a 
dumb beast is a crime ; to torture a man is a 
greater crime. To steal from one's own mother 
is more heinous than to steal from a fellow-citizen. 
The person who transgresses is the same in each 
instance ; but the different worth and dignity of 
the objects upon whom his action terminates 
makes the difference in the gravity of the two 
offenses. David's adultery was a finite evil in 
reference to Uriah, but an infinite evil [we prefer 
to say, ' much greater evil,' not because we know 
that it was not infinite, but because we do not 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 57 

know, from this stand-point, that it was] in refer- 
ence to God. ' Against thee only have I sinned/ 
was the feeling of the sinner in this case. Had 
the patriarch Joseph yielded, he would have 
sinned against Pharaoh. But the greatness of 
the sin as related to the fellow-creature is lost in 
its enormity as related to the Creator, and his 
only question is: 'How can I do this great 
wickedness and sin against God?' {Dogmatic 
Tlieology, vol. ii, p. 740.) 

(3) Another fact that throws light upon the 
subject is that guilt must last forever. If a man 
commits a crime he may pay the penalty that 
human law has attached to it, and conceivably 
that that divine law has attached to it,* and yet 
the fact and guilt of sin remain. Even a sinner 
forgiven is a forgiven sinner; the fact and guilt 
of his sin can never be canceled. In all eternity 
we believe the saved will be conscious that they 
are sinners saved from uncanceled guilt. We 
speak of sin and guilt as canceled or destroyed, 
and in popular language it expresses a glorious 
redemptive truth — the truth of forgiveness — but 
in fact and from a metaphysical stand-point both 
are never-ending. 

* This is said with the momentary conjecture that the penalty 
is limited in duration. 



58 FUTURE RETRIBUTION, 

2. The objection from the divine love. We 
stop simply for a moment to consider the objec- 
tion urged from this stand-point. It is said that 
God cannot suffer a soul to perish forever; that 
his infinite love will cause him to follow the last 
lost sheep into the wilderness until he find it. 

To this we reply that it is in God not a matter 
of disposition, but a matter of ability. We have 
no hesitancy in saying that if God could he 
would save the last lost soul in the universe, and 
that he would spare no cost to do so. But we 
have all reason for believing that all his divine 
resources for the salvation of men are exhausted 
in the infinite sacrifice of the cross ; that when 
God gave his Son for the world's redemption he 
exhausted the infinite treasury of grace and 
power, and that no other terms of salvation could 
be proposed than those given in the Scriptures. 

The necessity of future punishment we reserve 
for a separate treatment (chap. viii). 

It may be further said in response to this 
objection that it may be urged with equal plaus- 
ibility, and in fact is so urged by the infidel, 
against the divine providential ordering and gov- 
erning of this world. Except in the face of facts 
we would be equally inclined to object to many 
things in this world as incompatible with the 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 59 

character of a benevolent Creator. But facts are 
stubborn things, and we have to reconcile them 
as best we can. So, also, is this revealed fact of 
endless retribution. Butler long ago pointed 
out this analogy, and it is needless to dwell upon 
it longer. 

3. The objection from the divine omniscience. 
It is sometimes urged that the foreknowledge of 
God, in view of his love, is incompatible with the 
fact of endless punishment ; that God, foreknow- 
ing that some would be lost forever, would have 
refrained from creating the human race. Some, 
to evade this difficulty, as well as the difficulty 
of evil in general in the universe, deny to God 
the foreknowledge of contingent events. But 
without denying this scriptural fact we may ad- 
vance in mitigation of the difficulty the follow- 
ing facts: (1) The creation of man was a benev- 
olent act. (2) While man is not responsible for 
the inclination to sin with which he is born, he, 
nevertheless, having sufficient -grace given him 
whereby to overcome this and all actual sin if he 
choose, is responsible for actual sin. Man is a 
free being. (3) God, in creating the race of men, 
intended all to be saved (2 Pet. iii, 9). (4) None 
will be lost but those who will not be saved (John 
v, 40). Damnation is a thing of deliberate choice. 



60 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

(5) The race, as such, will in all probability be 
saved. (This point will be dwelt upon in a sub- 
sequent chapter, v.) 

With these qualifications the objections from 
this stand-point vanish. It is by forgetting or 
ignoring them, especially man's freedom, that 
the objections find place. 

4. The objection from teleology. The objec- 
tion from this stand-point asks, with Martensen, 
the almost stunning question : " Must this world's 
development, then, end in a dualism?' Will 
evil continue forever in a benevolent universe 
along with the good ? 

It is one of the most serious difficulties with 
which the doctrine of future retribution has to 
contend ; but, however difficult and startling the 
thought may be, it can weigh nothing against a 
clearly revealed fact of the divine Word. Besides, 
as Dorner, who certainly is not biased toward the 
orthodox doctrine, says, " The objective reason 
why no categorical affirmation [concerning apok- 
atastasis] can be made on dogmatic grounds lies 
in human freedom. It does not admit the asser- 
tion of a universal process leading necessarily to 
salvation, because such process is and remains 
conditioned by non-rejection and free acceptance' 1 
{System of Christian Doctrine, vol. iv, p. 424) ; 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 61 

only we would limit the influence of freedom to 
this life in deciding destiny. The further reason 
of this eternal dualism will be discussed in an- 
other place (chap. viii). 

Other objections of this class, more or less in- 
volved in those already given, need not be con- 
sidered. 

II. Objections from the Scriptures. 

All the objections from this stand-point are 
urged chiefly with reference to the word alcovtog 
in Matt, xxv, 46, and such phrases as " eternal 
fire ' (to -rrvp to aluviov), u unquenchable fire ' 
(to nvp to aofieoTov}, " unto ages ' (elg ai&vaY 
" unto the ages of ages " (eig Tovg alujvag tCjv 
alcjvcov^ etc. 

I. As to the word aloyvcog in Matthew, it is as- 
serted by some that it cannot mean eternal ; by 
others, simply that it does not mean eternal. 
Both assertions are made, so far as we have been 
able to judge, principally on the ground that in 
some cases, and etymologically, it does not mean 
eternal. We know no writer who pretends to 
assert in either case the contrary. On the other 
hand, they all acknowledge that aluv — the sub- 
stantive form of which alcoviog is a derivative 
adjective — etymologically means an " age/' and 



62 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

that alcjvLoc; itself is often used both in the Greek 
writers, in the Septuagint (where it is used in the 
translation of the Hebrew Dpiy ? a word that has 
in the Old Testament an almost parallel signifi- 
cation with the word al6)v in its uses in the New 
Testament ; due, no doubt, to the fact that the 
New Testament writers used the Septuagint ver- 
sion of the older Scriptures), and in the New 
Testament in the sense of limited duration. But 
the question to be considered is whether it ever 
means " eternal/ ' 

Those who assert that the word never means 
eternal do so in the face of many indubitable 
facts to the contrary. From the Scriptures we 
insist that it does so mean in reference to God 
and the future life of the righteous. (Examine 
Rom. xvi, 26; 2 Cor. iv, 17; v, 1 ; Heb. v, 9 ; 
ix, 15.) Lexicographers also tell us that the 
word has in some instances the same meaning in 
the Greek classics. (See Thayer, Greek-English 
Lexicon of the New Testament, in loco*) 

The particular question, then, for us to con- 

* It will not detract from the argument to remind the reader 
that the word " eternal " is not only a translation of the Greek 
aio)vcog y but that it is identical with it. " The Greek atdv (aeon) 
is one and the same with the Latin cevum, and from this we 
get cevitas and ceviternus^ with their shortened forms, cetas and 
(Elernus" 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 63 

sider is, Does the word mean eternal in this 
place ? That it does may be inferred not only 
from the fact that there is no reason for the 
assertion to the contrary, but also from the 
correlated facts adduced in the Scripture proofs 
of the doctrine of punishment (chap. i). 

2. As to the phrases " unto ages/' " unto the 
ages of ages," etc., it is sometimes said that they 
cannot signify " eternal," for no amount of mul- 
tiplication of " ages ' ' can make an eternity. 

Our response to this is that these plural forms 
and phrases are rhetorical expressions intended 
to emphasize and deepen the impression of eter- 
nity, like our own " for ever and ever." And 
that they signify absolute endlessness it is sur- 
prising that any one can deny. That they do so 
signify is manifest from the following Scriptures : 
" If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for- 
ever ' (slg rbv alcbva) (John vi, 51). " He that eat- 
eth this bread shall live forever ' (John vi, 
58). " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ' 
(etg rbv al&va rov aicbvog) (Heb. i, 8). "And they 
shall reign for ever and ever " (elc; rovg alcbvag rcov 
ald)VG)v^) (Rev. xxii, 5). 

3. Concerning the phrase u eternal fire/' it is 
objected : Even if the word alcjviog here does 
mean " eternal/' still the phrase signifies nothing 



64 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

as to the eternity of punishment, for it is the 
"fire" that is eternal and not the punishment, 
the instrument of punishment and not the pun- 
ishment itself. The same is said with reference 
to the phrases " unquenchable fire/ " the fire is 
not quenched/' etc. 

It is sufficient to reply to this that such is not 
the impression that one naturally gets from read- 
ing this terrible language. The words have to 
be explained to mean this. And again, unless 
the " fire ' of future punishment in the New Tes- 
tament represents some external instrument of 
torture (a thing that few Universalists will be 
willing to admit), it cannot last forever. Other- 
wise, it must in the nature of things cease to be 
when the punishment ceases. Besides, if it be 
even thought that the instrument is external, it 
is inconceivable that it shall continue forever, its 
function and use having come to an end. 

" Eternal' and " unquenchable" fire can mean 
nothing less, therefore, than eternal punishment. 

4. It is asserted further by some that the word 
aloyvioc; in the New Testament connotates a qual- 
itative and not a quantitative meaning ; that 
"eternal life " signifies the kind of life those in 
Christ enjoy, and has no reference to its duration ; 
and that " eternal punishment " signifies the kind 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. G5 

of punishment the wicked must endure, and has 
no reference to its duration. For the Christian 
not versed in Greek and not used to scientific 
study it may be looked upon simply as " figu- 
rative " (Whiton, Is " Eternal" Punishment End- 
less? p. xii). 

We content ourselves in response with a single 
remark, namely, that not only does the quanti- 
tative sense of the w r ord suit the connection in 
all cases in which it is used in the New Testa- 
ment {Biblical Eschatology, A. Hovey, p. 163) ; 
and not only is the word " life ' used by John 
to signify the quality of our existence in Christ 
without the word " eternal' (John iii, 36; v, 24; 
vi, 33, etc.) ; but that in none of the instances of 
its use is the impression naturally made that the 
word has the qualitative signification. The word 
that expresses quality of existence in Christ in 
the phrase " eternal life' is the word "life," 
and the word " eternal * simply governs the life 
as to its duration. When St. John speaks of 
" eternal life ' as a present possession, and St. 
Paul speaks of it as a hope (Rom. ii, 7 ; Tit. 
i, 2 ; iii, 7), the thought is in every case " the 
life which is eternal,' the first word signifying 
the quality and the second the quantity or du- 
ration of existence. 



G6 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

Another form of this same objection is that 
which asserts that the word al&vioc; signifies simply 
" pertaining to eternity." This also, however, will 
not bear the test of the laws of lexicography. 

Still another form of the objection is that 
which asserts that the word has an " absolute ' 
signification ; that in its use in the Scriptures it 
denotes that which is above time. The objection 
in this form is associated with the notion that 
time and eternity are exclusive ideas, and that 
with regard to God and eternal things it is not 
proper to postulate succession or duration of 
existence. On this ground it is asserted that 
when the word al&vLog is used with reference to 
the life after death it signifies nothing as to du- 
ration, and hence that it signifies nothing as to 
the extent of future punishment. 

In response to this it will be sufficient to quote 
the following words of Plumptre, a well-known 
scholar of the first rank, and one whose testi- 
mony will not be thought to favor through tra- 
ditional prejudice the common view. As to the 
word al&viog, after referring to many instances of 
its use in the New Testament, he says : " It 
might seem as if this were a sufficient induction 
to establish the conclusion that the word served 
to express the fullest thought that man could 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 67 

grasp of absolute limitless duration " {The Spirits 
in Prison, p. 361). As to the thought of time 
being eliminated from the thought of eternity in 
the Scriptures, he says: "I find it impossible to 
conceive of life, either human or divine, apart 
from the idea of duration/ and then shows from 
such passages as Rev. i, 8; Psa. cxxxv, 13; 
cxxxvi, 1-26, that, separate from the word al&vcog, 
the idea of duration is expressly given in connec- 
tion with the idea of the divine Being (ibid., p. 368. 
The whole connection will repay examination). 

III. Arguments of Universalists. 

We next turn to the most important argu- 
ments of the Unfversalist, by w T hich he seeks to 
establish his pleasing claim. Many arguments 
from this source are too artificial to deserve seri- 
ous notice. Those which we propose to examine 
are of two kinds : (I) Those urged from specific 
passages of Scripture, and (II) those that claim 
to be legitimate deductions from certain general 
principles. 

A preliminary word as to method. Few writers 
of this class have any regard for sound laws of 
exegesis. In the matter of specific texts, in nearly 
all cases the context is wholly ignored. Few, 
however, are so outspoken in their disregard for 



68 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

particular passages of Scripture as is Dr. Cox in 
the following quotation : 

" For myself I am glad that this necessary, yet 
less welcome and less conclusive, part of our task 
is over, and that we may pass on and up from 
these minute critical investigations to breathe a 
larger air and to move freely along a higher path. 
For not only does it cramp and deaden the spirit 
that is in man to tarry long in the low valley of 
mere criticism, where the atmosphere is com- 
monly charged with the elements of polemical 
strife ; but it is also impossible for him, until he 
climb up out of it, to gain any broad, decisive, 
and inspiring view of the truth for which he con- 
tends. For no conclusion can be safely based on 
the study of scattered and isolated texts;' by 
which he means particular passages of Scripture, 
such as he has already examined {Salvator 
Mundi, p. 148). 

Before passing to the more particular consid- 
eration of our present topic, we beg leave to 
remind the Universalist who claims so much for 
principles, and who has so little regard for specific 
texts, that all his so-called principles are but in- 
ductions from particular statements of the divine 
Word. What, for example, is the principle of 
divine love but an induction from such passages 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 69 

of Scripture as " For God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso- 
ever believeth on him should not perish, but 
have eternal life/ and " God is love?' Or, 
again, what is the principle of the divine " un- 
changeableness ' but an induction from such 
passages as these : " For I the Lord change not ' 
(Mai. iii, 6), " Every good gift and every perfect 
boon is from above, coming down from the 
Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, 
neither shadow that is cast by turning" (Jas. 
i, 17)? We would remind the Universalist still 
further that these so-called principles of his are 
not, properly speaking, principles at all, but re- 
vealed facts; or, if he insists on saying they are 
revealed principles, we reply that endless suffering 
is as much a revealed principle, on this assump- 
tion, as is the divine love or unchangeableness. 
We prefer to say, however, that they are revealed 
facts, all of them; and whether we stand on the 
summit or not from which we can see their har- 
mony and reconciliation, as revealed they are to 
be accepted in our thinking and life, and should 
govern our teaching and conduct. 

Furthermore, we can have no controversy upon 
the subject with those whose method is to sub- 
ordinate the teaching of Scripture to the so-called 



70 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

dictates of reason and the moral sense. We are 
not rationalists, and are unwilling to apply in 
practice a principle which we ignore in profession. 
Our only contention, then, will be with those 
who claim to get their specific teaching and 
principles of reasoning from the divine Word. 

I. Arguments from so-called principles, or de- 
ductions from undisputed Scripture facts. 

I. First among these we place that which is 
urged on the ground of the divine unchange- 
ableness. This argument has various forms and 
illustrations, but in substance asserts that since 
God is unchangeable, and has dealt with men in 
the past, and deals with them in the present, on 
certain principles of mercy and patience, he will 
always so deal with them, and hence that the 
door of grace will never be closed upon their 
return to life and happiness. 

The insuperable difficulty with the argument, 
however, is that it proves too much ; for if the 
final restoration of all men is a legitimate infer- 
ence on the ground of the divine unchangeable- 
ness from the principle and fact of past and pres- 
ent dealings of mercy, then equally may eternal 
wrath be deduced, on the same ground, from the 
fact that in this life in certain instances the door 
of repentance has been closed upon the persist- 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 71 

ently wicked. Witness, for example, the ante- 
diluvians who perished in the flood, and Esau 
(Heb. xii, 17), besides the many cases in which 
the door of return has been closed, and is being 
closed to-day, upon those who have forfeited or 
wasted their powers and opportunities, as seen 
outside of the Scriptures. The fact is, the di- 
vine unchangeableness proves no more than what 
is revealed concerning it, and this is consistent 
with the equally revealed fact of punishment. 
Moreover, the divine unchangeableness, in view 
of the Scriptures which affirm that sin persisted 
in conducts to an irretrievable ruin, is to be 
urged with all its force on the side of the teach- 
ing of the orthodox Church. Because God who 
changes not has declared, " The soul that sinneth, 
it shall die/' therefore we accept the plain and ter- 
rible teaching of the divine Word, and urge men to 
immediate repentance. Any other use of this fact, 
in view of all that is revealed, is wresting the 
Scriptures to one's own destruction (2 Pet. iii, 16). 
2. The divine love. We have sufficiently 
considered this in another place, and stop here 
to add a word only. There can be no conten- 
tion between the Universalist and the orthodox 
believer at this point.* The love of God is as 

* We mean, of course, the Trinitarian Universalist. 



72 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

much a cherished fact to the one as to the other. 
We both measure the love of God in the light of 
the cross. The difference between us is in our 
inferential assertion from this fact. The Uni- 
versalist says, " God is love ; therefore he will 
ultimately save all men/' We say, " God is 
love, and desires to save all men, but cannot 
save those who in life will not be saved." The 
reason of future endless retribution, as before 
intimated, will be considered later on. 

3. Sufficient has also been said concerning the 
divine justice. 

4. Another fact which is virtually (Martensen), 
and sometimes actually (Jukes), urged as an 
argument in favor of final universal restoration 
is what is called by some an " antinomy ' in the 
Scriptures, and by others an " apparent contra- 
diction/' Sometimes this so-called antinomy, 
or apparent contradiction, is attempted to be 
explained, and in the interest of restoration ; 
again, it is left unexplained with a secret hope 
that beneath the mystery lies a deep purpose of 
benevolence that will finally compass the salva- 
tion of all men. The facts on which this doc- 
trine is built may best be stated in the language 
of its advocates. 

"This antinomy meets us if we turn to the 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 73 

Holy Scriptures, and no definite solution is given 
of it there. There are texts which, if they be 
taken in their full and literal import, most dis- 
tinctly refer to eternal damnation. When the 
Lord speaks of ' everlasting fire, prepared for the 
devil and his angels ; ' when he speaks of ' the 
worm that dieth not, and the fire which shall 
not be quenched ; ' when he mentions sins 
against the Holy Ghost, which * shall never be 
forgiven, neither in this world, nor in that which 
is to come' (Mark ix, 43; Matt, xii, 32); when 
the apostle John declares that there is a sin unto 
death, for which a man must not pray (1 John 
v, 16), — these texts, if they be taken without 
reservation or refinement, clearly express the 
idea of a condemnation in which there is no 
cessation, to which there is no end. But, on the 
other hand, there are contrasted expressions of 
Scripture which have an equal claim to be taken 
in their full sense. When the apostle Paul says 
that ' the last enemy that shall be destroyed is 
death' (therefore the other, the second death; 
because otherwise there would still remain an 
unconquerable enemy) ; when he speaks of the 
time l when God shall be all in all ' (1 Cor. xv, 
2J-28), without referring to any contrast what- 
ever between blessed and condemned ; when he 



74 FUTURE RETRIBUTION, 

states, without any reservations, that ' all things 
shall be gathered together in Christ ' (Eph. i, 10) 
as the Head, that ' as in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alive ' (i Cor. xv, 22), — 
if we take these texts without limiting their full 
and obvious import, we shall not be far from the 
idea of a universal restoration ; for the apostle 
says expressly ALL, not some. (Compare Matt. 
xix, 26.) This apparent contradiction in the 
language of Scripture shows that Scripture itself 
does not afford us a final dogmatic solution of 
the question. He who seeks to establish the 
doctrine of (anofcardaraacg) universal restoration 
must invalidate those texts which make mention 
of eternal damnation, must limit and pare them 
down according to this idea ; and he who would 
establish eternal damnation as a dogma by 
means of Scripture is obliged to limit and pare 
down those texts which speak for the arrofcard- 
OTdGtg, according to this idea : for example, when 
the apostle says, i As in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alive/ he must ex- 
plain the second * all ' as meaning l some/ and 
he must take the first ' all ; in a particular and 
equally restricted sense. We readily grant that 
the Word of God cannot contradict itself, and 
that the antinomy here presented must really be 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 75 

solved in the depth of God's Word. We only 
maintain that this solution is nowhere expressly 
given ; and we ask whether we may not recog- 
nize divine wisdom in the fact that a final solu- 
tion is not given us, while we are still in the 
stream of time and in the course of develop- 
ment?' (Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 

475 . 476.) 

Again : " What, then, does Scripture say on 

this subject ? Its testimony appears at first 
sight contradictory. Not only is there on the 
one hand law, condemning all, while on the other 
hand there is the Gospel, with good news for 
every one; but, further, there are direct state- 
ments as to the results of these, which at first 
sight are apparently irreconcilable. First our 
Lord calls his flock ' a little flock/ and states 
distinctly that ' many are called, but few are 
chosen ; ' that i strait is the gate, . and narrow 
is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there 
be that find it ; ' that * many shall seek to enter 
in, and shall not be able;' that while ' he that 
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, he 
that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but 
the wrath of God abideth on him / that i the 
wicked shall go away into everlasting punish- 
ment/ * prepared for the devil and his angels;' 



76 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

* 
' the resurrection of damnation ;' ' the damnation 

of hell/ ' where their worm dieth not, and the fire 

is not quenched / that though ' every word 

against the Son of man may be forgiven, the sin 

against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, 

neither in this world, nor in that which is to come ; ' 

and that of one at least it is true, that * good had 

it been for that man if he had not been born.' 

w w w w w 

■ - Words could not well be stronger. The 
difficulty is that all this is but one side of Script- 
ure, which in other places seems to teach a 
very different doctrine. For instance, there are 
first the words of God himself, repeated again 
and again by those same apostles whom I have 
just quoted, that ' in Abraham's seed all the 
kindreds of the earth shall be blessed ' — words 
which St. Peter expounds to mean that there 
shall be * a restitution of all things/ adding that 
' God hath spoken of this by the mouth of all his 
holy prophets since the world began/ St. Paul 
further declares this wondrous ' mystery of God's 
will, that he hath purposed in himself, according 
to his good pleasure, to rehead and reconcile 
unto himself, in and by Christ, all things, 
whether they be things in heaven ' — that is, the 
spirit-world, where the conflict with Satan yet is— 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 77 

'or things on earth' — that is, this outward world, 
where death now reigns, and where even Goers 
elect are by nature children of wrath, even as 
other men. Further, St. Paul asserts that ' all 
creation, which now groans, shall be delivered 
from the bondage of corruption, into the glori- 
ous liberty of the children of God/ In another 
place he declares that ' God was in Christ recon- 
ciling the world unto himself,' and that Christ 
' took our flesh and blood, through death to de- 
stroy him that had the power of death, that is, 
the devil;' that ' if by the offense of one many 
be dead, much more the grace of God and the 
gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, 
hath abounded unto many ;' that ' therefore as by 
the offense of one, or by one offense, judgment 
came on all to condemnation, even so by the 
righteousness of one, or by one righteousness, 
the free gift should come on all unto justification 
of life,' while * they which receive abundance of 
grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign 
in life by one, Jesus Christ;' that 'as sin hath 
reigned unto death, so grace might reign unto 
eternal life,' yea, that ' where sin abounded, grace 
did yet much more abound. . . .' 

" . . . What can this contradiction mean ? Is 
there any key, and if so, what is it, to this 



78 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

mystery? " (Jukes, Restitution of All Things, 
pp. 19-26.) 

The key that this writer finds is the doctrine 
of universal restoration. 

As to the alleged antinomy we can offer noth- 
ing better than the following from a writer 
already quoted : 

" There is a sophism in the very word. In 
a pure question of fact the term ' antinomy ! is 
not applicable. It can properly apply only to 
the relation existing between two laws or princi- 
ples (principles either of procedure or of thought) 
which are each conceived as valid and impera- 
tive, but which issue in contradictory proposi- 
tions. Now, of course, it is allowable to argue 
the purely a priori question : Do our concep- 
tions of God, or of the moral nature of man, 
necessitate a belief that the punishment of 
human sin will be endless? Such an argument 
may issue in a so-called ' antinomy of faith/ 
But the question in hand is one of fact. The 
mind may remain at rest in an antinomy ; it does 
not, at least, annul organic thought. It is com- 
patible with reason and science. The instance 
given above is familiar ; divine foreknowledge on 
the one hand, human responsibility on the other. 
It is otherwise with a question of fact — the ex- 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 79 

istence and non-existence at the same time of a 
given tiling, the taking place and the not taking 
place of a given event. The present question is 
one of the latter kind — one on which the Script- 
ures do not reason with men, but announce to 
men ! (William A. Stevens, in the Bibliotheca 
Sacra, January, 1889, p. 139). 

But allowing the word " antinomy" to stand, 
if thereby is intended an " apparent contradic- 
tion/' as others affirm, we are prepared to assert 
that there is no such " apparent contradiction 
between the passages cited except to those who 
persistently ignore their plain and obvious in- 
tent as seen when read in their connections. 
Consideration will be given to these specific pas- 
sages in another place (pp. 91-113). 

5. Punishment remedial. It is asserted that 
in the Scriptures future punishment is set forth 
as corrective, remedial, and hence that it will 
cease when it has fulfilled its function in disci- 
plining the lost for heaven. This is sometimes 
asserted as an inference from the fact of a divine 
benevolent chastisement in the present life 
(Heb. xii, 5—1 1). Again, the assertion is made 
on the ground of certain Scripture words and 
statements. We propose to consider the valid- 
ity or invalidity of the claim. 



80 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

So far as the teaching is an inference from 
such Scriptures as Heb. xii, 5—1 1 , it is plainly in 
conflict with the logical requirement which de- 
mands the ground of the inference. We gladly 
recognize the revealed fact that our heavenly 
Father chastens his children for their profit in 
this life, but see nothing in this to invalidate the 
fact, equally revealed, of future punishment that, 
because eternal, cannot be corrective. Besides, 
the " chastisement " of the Bible is for " sons,*' 
and sinners are not sons in the evangelical use 
of the word. (Compare John viii, 44 ; Rom. viii, 
14 ; Gal. iv, 5, 6.) 

As to Scripture facts directly claimed in its 
favor, it is said that the word tcoXaotg in the 
phrase " eternal punishment '* (koXclglv al&viov) in 
Matt, xxv, 46, signifies "pruning,-" or discipline, 
and that the wicked are accordingly assigned in 
the judgment to an " gonial pruning," not pun- 
ishment. It is claimed that the true Greek word 
for " retributive ' punishment is rifiopia, not 
KoXamg. 

It is freely acknowledged that the alleged dis- 
tinction is made in the classic Greek writings. 
(See Thayer, ut supra.) But even in these writ- 
ings " usage does not always recognize the dis- 
tinction/' especially in the later of them {ibid.). 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 81 

Also, KoXaoiq is used in the Septuagint in some 
instances (for example, 2 Mace, iv, 38), and once 
at least in the verb form in the New Testament 
(Acts iv, 21), where the idea of discipline is ex- 
cluded. The first of these passages concerns the 
punishment of Andronicus by Antiochus for the 
murder of the high-priest Onias, and is as fol- 
lows : " And being kindled with anger, forth- 
with he took away Andronicus his pupil, and 
rent off his clothes, and leading him through the 
whole city unto that very place where he had 
committed impiety against Onias, there slew he 
the cursed murderer. Thus the Lord rewarded 
him his punishment \_fc6Xaaiv~\ as he had deserved." 
The passage in Acts is as follows : " And they, 
when they had further threatened them, let 
them go, finding nothing how they might pun- 
ish [fcoXdoGJVTat] them, because of the people.' 
Moreover, there is no instance of the use of the 
word in the Bible where the retributive sense 
is not perfectly natural, and in fact only so. 
(Compare 1 John iv, 18 ; 2 Pet. ii, 9.) The 
w r ord that properly signifies discipline is Traideca. 
Again, KOAaacg is not alone used in the Script- 
ures of the punishment of the wicked. In Heb. 
x, 29, it is asked, " Of how much sorer punish- 
ment [rifj,G)piag~] y think ye, shall he be judged 
6 



82 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of 
God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, 
wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, 
and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace ? ' 

Again, it is asserted that the remedial charac- 
ter of future punishment is taught in the use of 
the word " fire," which describes its nature, and 
especially in the phrase " salted with fire' in 
Mark ix, 49. It is said one of the functions of 
fire, and especially " salt," is to purify, or cleanse, 
and that these words intimate the purging qual- 
ity of the punishment of the life to come, which 
purging will go on until all the moral filth of the 
universe is burned up. When sin is thus burned 
out of the souls of men, then they will be ready 
for the purity of heaven. It is intimated that 
the fires of Hinnom (yesvva), the place which 
symbolized the future place of torment, were 
kindled and kept burning for sanitary purposes. 

In response to this we may say, first, that no 
doubt fire has a sanitary function, and that the 
fire of hell has the same function for the moral 
world ; but it is for the purgation of the moral 
world, and not of those cast into it. The fire of 
Hinnom kept the pestilence from the city of 
Jerusalem ; it did not cleanse, but destroyed the 
things cast into it. Moreover, fire was used in 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 83 

some instances for purely punitive purposes (Lev. 
x, 2 ; Num. xvi, 35). 

The phrase " salted with fire" is somewhat 
different, and yet it is with little consistency that 
writers of this school lay so much emphasis 
upon so " isolated " and figurative an expression. 
Besides, it is not admitted by all that the words 
refer to the future life at all; and if they do, it 
must be remembered that the sacrifice (to which 
allusion is made, see Lev. ii, 13) was not salted 
for its own sake, but as a symbol of cleansing 
for the people. For further consideration of 
this most difficult passage, the reader must be 
referred to the various commentaries and kin- 
dred works. 

Another fact that is urged to prove that the 
future punishment of the wicked is remedial is 
that which is recorded in First Corinthians, fifth 
chapter and fifth verse, concerning the offender 
who was to be delivered unto Satan for the de- 
struction of the flesh, that his spirit might be 
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (Compare 
I Tim. i, 20.) It is said that " this wretched 
Corinthian was y as we know, redeemed by his 
very condemnation, and delivered from the 
power of the devil by being delivered into the 
power of the devil " (2 Cor. ii, 5—1 1). The 



84 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

inference is made from this case that when the 
wicked are delivered unto Satan in the judgment 
it is with a like beneficent purpose. 

In response, besides referring to tne unwar- 
ranted assumption which bases a doctrine of the 
future life upon God's dealings with men in this 
life, we may say : (i) The express object of the 
present deliverance unto Satan of this man was 
that the flesh might be destroyed and the spirit 
" saved in the day of the Lord Jesus! Why 
this present concern except on the assumption 
that without the present destruction of the flesh 
the spirit would be lost in the day of the Lord 
Jesus ? (2) Being delivered unto Satan could 
not mean the same as " cast into the lake of 
fire' " prepared for the devil and his angels.' 
The- act of the Corinthian Church was an eccle- 
siastical act of excommunication. This seems 
to have been the import of the phrase " deliver 
such a one unto Satan," so far as the Corinthian 
society had to do with the matter. Surely that 
Church had no other power. By this excom- 
munication, and consequent surrendering of this 
wicked one unto Satan, whom he had already 
been serving, or, in other words, by the rebuke 
of the Church, and being left to the unrestrained 
working of the lust of the flesh, Paul hoped (and 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 85 

he did not hope in vain) that the fallen brother 
might be restored. 

But we have a dogmatic controversy with this 
doctrine. If future punishment is remedial, 
what did Christ die to redeem us from ? Surely 
not from a necessary remedy; and Universalists 
such as Mr. Cox say that future punishment is 
necessary as a remedy. But they say future 
punishment is also retributive. Then, are we 
saved from the retributive element of punish- 
ment, and left to endure it for the remedial ef- 
fect ? Shall we thus split the intent of future 
punishment? And if so, what effect of sin are 
we practically redeemed from ? What is the 
retributive element of future punishment as 
separate from the remedial in the punishment 
itself? We can conceive the twofold intent of 
punishment, but cannot conceive a redemption 
from an intent while the punishment yet re- 
mains. The outcome is, we are not redeemed 
from punishment or penalty, and, indeed, that 
we have no proper redemption at all on this sup- 
position. If future punishment is a necessary 
remedy for a life of sin, then it in itself is a 
mercy, and needs no mercy to redeem from it. 
God's method of salvation is thus not by for- 
giveness through a merciful atonement, but by 



86 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

development and purification through a beneficent 
system of punishment. The result is, the atone- 
ment as a means of forgiveness is a superfluity 
in the divine economy. Surely a conclusion 
with such disastrous results to the scriptural 
doctrine of redemption cannot be true. 

This needs to be insisted on. The Universal- 
ist, from his own premises and conclusions, ad- 
mits this result, for men must undergo all their 
penalty incurred as a necessary remedy. If they 
undergo the penalty of sin, from what are they 
redeemed? From the power of sin? Well, 
suppose so ; but then, not through Christ, but 
through suffering. Suffering is the great healer 
and restorer. But we insist that if there is any 
redemption from the guilt of sin, it cannot come 
through the endurance of the penalty. This is 
paying the penalty, not being delivered from it. 
There is no place for a true atonement on this sup- 
position in the Restorationist'splan of salvation.* 

6. Argument is attempted from certain Old 
Testament analogies. It is alleged that as the 
Jews misread the Old Testament predictions con- 

* It is only consistent in Mr. Cox when he says : " For myself, 
I believe every sin must receive its due punishment " (Salvator 
Mundi, p. 227). Not only is this so of the sins of the wicked, 
according* to this writer, but also of those of the righteous (ibid., 
pp. 150-158). 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 87 

cerning the Messiah, and, consequently, were not 
ready to receive him when he came, having falsely 
learned to look for a temporal Messiah and king- 
dom (for which expectation there was some 
ground in the apparent teaching of the older 
Scriptures), so we are to learn, in the matter of his 
second coming to judgment, not to look so much 
at the surface teaching of the new Scriptures, lest 
we make a similar mistake, but at the deeper and 
more " spiritual " meaning. It is suggested that 
as the few only perceived the real spiritual sig- 
nification of the first advent, while the great 
body of the jews — including priests and scribes — 
falsely read into the Scriptures their temporal 
expectation concerning the Messiah, so the 
"few' only to-day seem to be able to grasp the 
deep spiritual import of the language of the New 
Testament concerning the second advent. This 
" spiritual interpretation is to be applied to 
our understanding of the language and terms 
that are used concerning the future punishment 
of the wicked. The result will be a doctrine of 
final universal restoration (Cox, ut supra, pp. 
229-237). Others would gather rays of hope 
from such facts as the universal purpose of God 
in the election of the Jews, and in the laws of 
the first-fruits and the first-born. As the Jews 



88 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

were selected from among the nations, not to be 
the exclusive recipients of God's favors, but to 
be bearers of them to others (Gen. xxii, 18), and 
as the first-fruits were the promise and pledge 
of a larger ingathering, and the first-born had 
certain relations of helpfulness toward the later- 
born for which he was given a " double portion ' 
of the inheritance, so the " elect ' of Christ and 
the " first-fruits " and " first-born " with him 
have similar missions of mercy to the non-elect 
and larger harvest and later-born in the world's 
redemption, which missions are to be fulfilled, 
not wholly in time, or the " age " that now is, 
but through the " ages to come." All shall at 
last be saved. So slight a fact as the redemption 
of an ass by a lamb (Exod. xiii, 12, 13) must 
have its New Testament analogy, and we are to 
read in the fact the " eternal purpose " of God for 
the restoration at last of the meanest and most 
worthless by the ministry of the good and the 
pure (Jukes, Restitution of All Things, pp. 27-68). 
As to the first analogy claimed in the interest 
of final universal restoration, it may be said in 
response: (1) The analogy would be truer if the 
mistake of the Jews were urged as a rebuke to 
the too temporal anticipations of those Chris- 
tians who are looking for a thousand years' reign 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 89 

of Christ on the earth before the judgment. (2) 
The Jews were not mistaken in looking for a 
temporal, or earthly, kingdom of the Messiah, 
but in looking for the kind of a kingdom they 
expected. Christ has a temporal kingdom on 
earth. He reigns and rules in his Church. The 
Jews, through unbelief, have excluded themselves 
from participation in it, and from sharing for the 
present in its more direct privileges, although, 
by and by, " all Israel [that is, Israel as a people, 
and not in individual cases only as in the days 
of Paul] shall be saved " (Rom. xi, 26). (3) The 
word " spiritual " is not the proper word to use 
in the matter of plain New Testament state- 
ments concerning the lost. If the language on 
which the orthodox doctrine is based were 
wholly, or largely, figurative, the word might 
with some propriety be used ; but not so in the 
case of language that is so plain and simple as it 
is in this case. The word " spiritual ' in this 
connection is an unadulterated device resorted to 
as a convenient method to weaken the terrible 
force of the straightforward teaching of the 
divine word. 

As to the other analogies urged, several re- 
marks may be made. 

I. As to the inference drawn from the election 



90 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

of Israel for a world-wide mission. This mission 
may be aptly and appropriately urged as a lesson 
for the Christian Church in its mission of preach- 
ing the Gospel to every creature. Here the 
analogy holds good ; not to an assumed mission 
of the saved to the unsaved in the other world. 
The promise, accordingly, that in Abraham's seed 
(Christ, Gal. iii, 16) " all the nations of the earth " 
should be blessed (Gen. xxii, 18), was a promise 
for the nations, which is being gloriously fulfilled 
in the Christianization of the world. 

2. As to the first-born and first-fruits, it must 
be said, (i) If the plain teaching of the New 
Testament is to be any guide in our interpreta- 
tion of the lessons drawn from these facts, they 
lend no support to the doctrine we are combat- 
ing. The places where the term " first-born is 
used in the New Testament are Rom. viii, 29; 
Col. i, 15, 18; Heb. xii, 23, In the first instance, 
the reference is to Christ " the first-born among 
many brethren;' the second, to Christ " the 
first-born of all creation ; ' the third, to him as 
" the first-born from the dead ; the last, to the 
" church of the first-born " — that is, the Church 
of the Hebrews. In none of these instances is 
there any semblance of a reference to future 
restoration of the lost. They, therefore, lend 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 91 

no support to the doctrine. The places where 
the term " first-fruits ' is used are Rom. viii, 
23; xi, 16; xvi, 5; I Cor. xv, 20, 23; xvi, 15; 
Jas. i, 18; Rev. xiv, 4. Examination will show 
that in none of these instances, likewise, is there 
any reference to this doctrine, or the future 
life. (2) The doctrine of the " ages ' on which 
this teaching is based is not tenable. If refer- 
ence is made to God's " eternal purpose " (Gr. 
" purpose of the ages/' Eph. iii, 1 1) for proof, we 
reply, The purpose here referred to is concerning 
the ages that are past, not those of the future. 
The verse reads, " God, according to the eternal 
purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our 
Lord. ' If it be said that " in the ages to come 
God will " show the exceeding riches of his grace 
in kindness/' we reply, by express limitation, 
toward them that are " in Christ Jesus " (Eph. ii, 
7). For the rest, we refer to the fact already re- 
marked upon, that the plural phrases containing 
forms of al&v are rhetorical expressions used to 
intensify the thought of eternity. 

II. Specific passages of Scripture used to 
prove the doctrine of universal restoration. 

1. The first class of passages of this kind that 
are made to do yeoman service for this doctrine 
are those that exhibit the benevolent and uni- 



02 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

versal provision and purpose of God concerning 
man's redemption. They are as follows : " For 
if by the trespass of the one the many died, much 
more did the grace of God, and the gift by the 
grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto 
the many" (Rom. v, 15). " So then as through 
one trespass the judgment came unto all men to 
condemnation ; even so through one act of right- 
eousness the free gift came unto all men to justifi- 
cation of life " {ibid., verse 18; compare the whole 
passage, 12-21). " But all things are of God, 
who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and 
gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation ; to 
wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world 
unto himself, not reckoning unto them their 
trespasses, and having committed unto us the 
word of reconciliation % ' (2 Cor. v, 18, 19). " Be- 
hold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the 
sin of the world ! ' (John i, 29). " And we have 
beheld and bear witness that the Father hath 
sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world' 
(1 John iv, 14), etc. 

Concerning these passages it will be sufficient 
to reply, with Muller, that they " cannot be 
made to sanction the idea of universal restora- 
tion, unless w T e adopt the principle that the final 
issue of the divine purposes must coincide with 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 93 

their primary tendency and design ; in other 
words, that God could not arrange his purposes 
according to the free action of man in relation to 
them " (Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. ii, p. 426) ; 
adding, simply, that they are to be " studied in 
their connection," and according to the " analogy 
of faith." According to this last hermeneutical 
law, as general statements they are to be limited 
by other limiting passages of the divine word, as, 
for example, those which declare the conditions 
of their fulfillment or realization. These limiting 
conditions are not doubtful. " Except ye re- 
pent ye shall all in like manner perish ' (Luke 
xiii, 3). " That whosoever believeth may in him 
have eternal life" (John iii, 15). " Except ye 
eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his 
blood, ye have not life in yourselves' (John vi, 

53). et c 

2. Another set of passages that are used to 

prove this doctrine concern the -resurrection of 

the dead and the " consummation of the world ' 

(avvreXeca rov alibvog). Chief among these are : 

" For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall 

all be made alive ' (1 Cor. xv, 22). " For he 

must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under 

his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished 

is death" {ibid., verses 25, 26). " And when all 



94 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

things have been subjected unto him, then shall 
the Son also himself be subjected to him that did 
subject all things unto him, that God may be all 
in all" {ibid., verse 28 ; compare the entire passage, 
20-28). " Whom the heaven must receive until 
the times of restoration [Authorized Version, 
" restitution ' of all things, whereof God spake 
by the mouth of his holy prophets which have 
been since the world began " (Acts iii, 21). These 
passages demand separate treatment. 

" For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ 
shall all be made alive." These words are simi- 
lar to much of the language in the fifth of Ro- 
mans, the one having reference to physical death 
and resurrection, the other to moral or spiritual. 
The emphasis which writers of this class lay 
upon them is the same in both cases. Conse- 
quently, the observations made upon the pas- 
sages in Romans will equally apply here (p. 92). 
It is necessary to add further, simply, that the 
apostle, in the entire chapter, is writing to Chris- 
tian believers concerning the reality of the res- 
urrection. There had grown up in the Church 
at Corinth some doubt as to this doctrine, and 
Paul would re-establish and confirm their faith in 
it. He does not attempt to prove the univer- 
sality of the resurrection, but simply seeks to 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 95 

establish the fact of the resurrection. His par- 
ticular thought was with reference to the resur- 
rection of the righteous dead (witness this in the 
general drift of the whole chapter, and in such 
particular statements as inverses 51, 52, 58), as 
was his thought in writing of the same doctrine, 
from other reasons, to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 
iv, 13-18); and, proving the fact of the resurrec- 
tion, he asserts that, " as in Adam all [meaning 
the righteous] die, so also in Christ shall all [the 
righteous] be made alive.' And at all events, 
there is no ground in these words for asserting 
the doctrine of universal restoration ; for other 
Scriptures which teach the universality of the 
resurrection teach also that the issue is a two- 
fold result — some are raised to " life," and others 
are raised to condemnation. " Marvel not at 
this : for the hour cometh, in which all that are 
in the tombs shall-hear his voice, and shall come 
forth ; they that have done good, unto the res- 
urrection of life ; and they that have done ill, 
unto the resurrection of judgment (John v, 28, 
29.* Compare Dan. xii, 2). 

* It is useless to try to prove that our Lord in this case was 
speaking of a spiritual, or moral, resurrection ; for, if so, wherein 
is the difference between those raised to "life " and those raised 
to ""judgment?" Also, the phrase "marvel not at this" marks 
a change of thought from the moral resurrection spoken of in 



96 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

" For he must reign, till he hath put all his ene- 
mies under his feet. The last enemy that shall 
be abolished is death." The facts involved in 
this text and its connections have already been 
referred to in our proofs of the doctrine of future 
punishment. We refer to them again in this 
connection because Universalists lay so much 
stress upon the passage given to prove their doc- 
trine. They are as follows: The end of the 
mediatorial reign of Christ accompanies the de- 
struction of the " last enemy," and the last enemy 
that is to be destroyed is physical death, in and 
by the resurrection, leaving the " aeonian pun- 
ishment," pronounced at the judgment, to follow 
this destruction of the last enemy. 

There is not the shadow of a reason for the 
statement in Martensen, that when Paul says 
" 4 the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death ' 
— therefore the other, the second death ; be- 
cause otherwise there would still remain an un- 

verse 25, and that in the verses we are considering. Our Lord's 
hearers were exhorted not to marvel at the soul resurrection from 
the death of sin, because the time would come when even the 
bodies of men w r ould be raised from the tomb. Again, the dif- 
ference in the two cases is shown by the two phrases, " the hour 
cometh, and now is," in the first case, and simply " the hour 
cometh," in the second — the one was present, the other future. 
Besides, it is forced and artificial to identify the " dead " of the 
first instance with " all that are in tombs " of the second. 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 97 

■ 

conquerable enemy' {Christian Dogmatics, p. 
475). The fact is in proof of the very reverse of 
this, as we have seen. The argument of Mar- 
tensen, moreover, is a clear case of potitio princi- 
pii. His assertion is to the effect that all men 
are to be restored because Paul says the " last 
enemy to be destroyed is death," and that Paul's 
expression includes the " second death " because 
otherwise all men would not be restored. We 
are willing that the Universalist shall have all 
the defense he can get from this sort of logic. 
We know his need of it. 

But to reiterate for the sake of emphasis, the 
order of events at the consummation of the 
world (Matt, xxviii, 20) is as follows : (1) The 
parousia, or coming of Christ ; (2) the resur- 
rection of the dead ; (3) the judgment ; (4) 
the end of Christ's mediatorial reign, when the 
kingdom will be delivered up to the Father. 
These events occur at the same time, or in im- 
mediate succession." The wicked, therefore, 

* No account is taken here of the millennium, for in any case 
the order of events is the same ; and the general resurrection, 
when the last enemy is to be destroyed, follows the parousia 
(however long or short the interval), and comes before the judg- 
ment. The significance of the rrfjurfj avaaraatq^ and other facts 
and difficulties connected with the millennium, do not enter, 
therefore, for consideration here. 

7 



98 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

are to go away into aeonian punishment after, 
or at the consummation, of all things. There 
remains, therefore, for them no more hope. 
Their judgment to death is part of the consum- 
mation of all things. 

" And when all things have been subjected 
unto him, then shall the Son also himself be sub- 
jected to him that did subject all things unto him, 
that God may be all in all." The most that is said 
in this passage is that all things shall be sub- 
jected unto Christ, and, finally, Christ to God. 
There is nothing in this statement to lend the least 
support to the doctrine of universal restoration. 

Much is made of the phrase, " that God may 
be all in all. ' One writer comments thus : " ' That 
God may be/ not all in some, but * all in all/ 
Nothing could show the perversity of the inter- 
pretation of writers of this class better than this. 
Not only is the whole context ignored, as is 
oftenest the case with these writers, but the 
manifest meaning of " divine supremacy' is also 
overlooked. The words do not mean that God 
may be all in all persons, but simply that he may 
be supreme. (Compare Eph. i, 23.) 

" Whom the heaven must receive until the 
times of restoration of all things, whereof God 
spake by the mouth of his holy prophets which 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 99 

have been since the world began/' As is well 
known, it is this text that furnishes the often-used 
and, exegetically, much-abused phrase, ano/ca- 
t&otclolc; rrdvrojv — " restitution of all things.' 
This phrase has come to be used by some writers 
as synonomous with universal restoration. Its 
abuse will be seen when it is remembered that 
there is good ground for the assertion that the 
word ano/cardaracFtg does not mean restitution or 
restoration in this place, in any proper sense of 
the word, at all, but " fulfillment, "having reference 
to the fulfillment " of all things, whereof [or 
which, cov'j God spake by the mouth of his holy 
prophets since thejivorld began." (Compare Matt, 
xvii, 11.) But if the word be accepted to mean 
" restitution ' or " restoration," that it cannot 
include the idea of the final universal restoration 
of the lost is manifest from the following fact, 
namely, that " the times of the restoration of all 
things' are to be fulfilled at the coming of our 
Lord. " The heaven must receive ' him " until ' 
then. The " restoration of all things ' precedes, 
therefore, the slg rovg ai&vag tcjv cuujvcov of future 
punishment. Besides, the "prophets' have no- 
where spoken of universal restoration. 

3. Still another class of passages that are urged 
in favor of universal restoration are those that 



100 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

speak of the " reconciliation ' or summing up 
of all things in Christ, whether they be things 
in heaven or things on earth. The two most 
explicit passages of this class are Eph. i, 9, 10, 
and Col. i, 19, 20. They are as follows: " Hav- 
ing made known unto us the mystery of his will, 
according to his good pleasure which he purposed 
in him unto a dispensation of the fullness of the 
times, to sum up all things in Christ [avcute&a- 
Xai&oaoOai ra rravra kv tg5 X/Mffrai], the things in the 
heavens, and the things upon the earth/' " For 
it was the good pleasure of the Father that in 
him should all the fullness dwell ; and through 
him to reconcile all things unto himself, having 
made peace through the blood of his cross ; 
through him, I say, whether things upon the 
earth, or things in the heavens. " 

We gladly recognize the deep and glorious 
truth of these words. Christ is a cosmic Being, 
having a universal relation to all things, both in 
the heavens and on the earth. Just what that 
relation to other worlds than ours is, except that 
it must be beneficent, we cannot know. The 
two words used in the above quoted passages 
(avafcec/yaXaLOG), aTTonaraXXdaad)^ furnish us with a 
general statement of some beneficent relation 
to the heavens as well as to the earth ; but just 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 101 

what we, perhaps, in its fullness, will never know. 
There is no reason for supposing that the efficacy 
of the cross, except in its moral lesson to other 
intelligences, extends beyond our own world, since 
it was wrought on earth and in our nature ; and 
just what the special implication of the recon- 
ciliation and re-heading, or summing up, of all 
things " in the heavens " may be, w r e cannot know. 
Our reconciliation to God is through the sacrifice 
of the cross ; how and in what sense * that of the 
heavens is effected we are not told. The same 
remark is to be made concerning the summing 
up of all things in the heavens in Christ, since 
this is most likely the same as the reconciliation ; 
or, at least, the one is involved in the other. 
But whatever the significance of this reconcil- 

* The reconciliation of things on earth is distincily said to be 
"peace through the blood of his cross." This divine and gra- 
cious work seems to be separate in the thought of the text from 
the undefined and general reconciliation of all things in heaven 
and on earth. The reconciliation on earth seems separately and 
specially given — "having made peace," etc. — the other is not. 
Besides, if we assume that other worlds are reconciled, as is ours, 
by the death of the cross, we must assume universal sinfulness 
in the universe ; for our reconciliation is through an infinite sac- 
rifice on account of sin. But some, at least, of the angels we 
know have not sinned. This is involvtd in the expression in 
Jude 6, "The angels which kept not their own principality, but 
left their proper habitation," etc. Some did keep "their own 
principality." Still further, that our atonement is not for the 
angels is emphatically involved in Heb. ii, 16. 



102 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

iation and summing up of all things in Christ 
may be, and the specific agency of their realiza- 
tion, these texts can lend no support to the doc- 
trine we are opposing. One manifest reason is, 
that they say nothing about it. Another is, that 
they limit the reconciliation to the things in the 
heavens and on the earth. The comment of 
Dr. Jukes is evidently coined for the emergency : 
" ' Whether they be things in heaven ' — that is, 
the spirit-world, where the conflict with Satan 
yet is — ' or things on earth ' — that is, this out- 
ward world, where death now reigns, and where 
even God's elect are by nature children of wrath, 
even as other men " * (ut supra, p. 22). 

But we insist upon it, if the doctrine of uni- 
versal restoration is true, that the great apos- 
tle did not say, "And things under the earth/ 
in these passages, is not to be accounted for. 
What a magnificent opportunity Paul had to 
teach this doctrine had he so desired, and how 
natural it would have been to do so if it were 
true ! The limitation seems intentional when 

* The unreliableness of this writer as an exegete is demon- 
strated in the turn of thought he gives to the passage referred to 
in the latter part of the quotation, as in many other instances. 
In this case Dr. Jukes says: "Where even God's elect are by 
nature children of wrath," etc. ; whereas Paul says, "were by 
nature children of wrath." , 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS, 103 

we consider the fact that this apostle in other 
connections, and where the thought is of univer- 
sal subjugation to Christ, without specifying 
whether it is voluntary or compulsory (Phil, ii, 
9, io*), uses the very phrase, " and things 
under the earth." As Paul was familiar with the 
fact that " every knee ' ' in heaven and earth and 
hell should bow to Christ, why, we urge, did he 
not say " and things under the earth ' when 
speaking of the re-heading and reconciliation of 
all things in Christ if the Universalist is right ? 
The conclusion is patent and inevitable. Paul, 
who had already declared that the wicked " shall 
suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from 
the face of the Lord and from the glory of his 
might " (2 Thess. i, 9), knew that for the lost there 
was "no more a sacrifice for sins " (Heb. x, 26), 
4. Still another class of passages that are used 
by the Universalist to support his claim are 
some that relate to the universal conquest of the 
Gospel, or that show the world-wide mission of 

* That the thought in this text implies the universal supremacy 
of Christ and his kingdom, without specifying what is the char- 
acter of the subjection, is manifest to all but those who insist 
on reading their doctrine of restoration into it. Bowing the 
knee was an act of homage and subjection for both friendly and 
unfriendly subjects. Moreover, the phrase is used in Rom. xiv, 
10-12, with special reference to the " judgment." (Compare Eph. 
iii, 14 ; Matt, xxvii, 29 ; Isa. xlv, 23.) 



104 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

Christianity. Of course, the Universalist will 
not allow the claim involved in this classification ; 
but a slight examination, in most instances, will 
show the validity of it. 

The chief passages of this class are as follows: 
" And in thy seed shall all the nations of the 
earth be blessed ' (Gen. xxii, 18). "And so all 
Israel shall be saved ' (Rom. xi, 26). " Who 
willeth that all men should be saved, and come 
to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one 
God, one Mediator also between God and men, 
himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a 
ransom for all ; the testimony to be borne in its 
own times" (1 Tim. ii, 4-6). "And I, if I be 
lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto 
myself'' (John xii, 32). 

The first two passages have already been re- 
ferred to in the course of this discussion, and 
need but a moment's consideration here. That 
the promise to Abraham, that in his seed the 
world should be blessed, was a promise which 
had reference to the universal spread of Chris- 
tianity, may be proved by the fact that it con- 
cerned the "nations," and that Paul so applies 
it (Gal. hi, 8). That that referring to the salva- 
tion of " all Israel " is to be understood as refer- 
ring to the conversion of the Jews as a people 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 105 

to Christianity may be proved by reference to 
the entire passage in which the words occur 
(Rom. xi). Here it will be found that the apostle 
is contrasting and explaining the conversion of 
the Gentiles and the rejection of Israel ; not 
every individual Israelite, but Israel as a people. 
A " remnant ' had already been saved, " ac- 
cording to the election of grace ' (verse 5), by 
faith ; but Israel as a people had been " broken 
off" through unbelief (verse 20). Paul, however, 
foresees the time when " all Israel shall be saved/' 
Qr when Israel as a people shall be restored to 
the covenanted privileges from which they had 
excluded themselves. 

The reference of the other two passages is 
likewise unmistakable. That the passage in First 
Timothy refers to the conversion of the world will 
be seen by including the seventh verse : " Where- 
unto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle 
(I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the 
Gentiles in faith and truth." Paul's reference in 
this verse to the Gentiles shows the universal 
thought he has of the Gospel when he says Christ 
was given " a ransom for all ; the testimony to 
be borne in its own times.' The whole context 
(verses 1-8) is helpful to the same exposition. 
The import of John xii, 32, maybe judged from 



106 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

the explicit reference of verse 31 : " Now is the 
judgment of this world : now shall the prince 
of this world be cast out," preceding immediately 
the words of the text. The occasion also shows 
beyond any doubt what thought our Lord had 
in mind when he uttered the words. Certain 
Greeks (Gentiles) had come to see him. This 
gives rise to a discourse by Christ, the leading 
thought of which is, as Tholuck expresses it, " in 
the longing of these Gentiles is an anticipation 
of the future conversion of the world.' The " all 
men/' then, of this passage is synonomous with 
the " all nations " of Gen. xxii, 18, and the " all ' 
of 1 Tim. ii, 4-6. 

5. Two passages of Scripture urged in favor 
of this doctrine, that form a class by themselves, 
are Matt, v, 26 : " Verily I say unto thee, Thou 
shalt by no means come out thence, till thou 
have paid the last farthing ; ' and Luke xii, 47, 
48: " And that servant, which knew his lord's 
will, and made not ready, nor did according to 
his will, shall be beaten with many stripes ; but 
he that knew not, and did things worthy of 
stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." It is 
affirmed that both of these passages involve the 
cessation of punishment. 

It is to be said : (1) If they teach the cessation 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 107 

of punishment in the cases to which they refer, 
they would not, therefore, teach universal restora- 
tion. The most, in any case, that can be claimed 
from them is that they teach the restoration of 
some. We would then have both " eternal ' ' and 
" temporal " future punishment. (2) But it is to 
be questioned whether the first passage (as, per- 
haps, Matt, xii, 32) expresses more than an " em- 
phasized negative in relation to the condition 
of the lost. (3) The second passage can be ex- 
plained, after the common fashion, to signify 
degrees in punishment rather than duration. It 
is confessedly a figurative mode of speech, and 
can, therefore, teach nothing that contradicts oth- 
er and explicit declarations of the divine word. 

6. Miscellaneous. There are a few other pas- 
sages that need brief consideration that cannot be 
otherwise classified than as miscellaneous. These 
are : " For God hath shut up all unto disobe- 
dience, that he might have mercy upon all ' 
(Rom. xi, 32); " For to this end Christ died, and 
lived again, that he might be Lord of both the 
dead and the living " (Rom. xiv, 9) ; " For to 
this end we labor and strive, because we have 
our hope set on the living God, who is the Sav- 
iour of all men, specially of them that believe'' 
(1 Tim. iv, 10) ; " And death and Hades were cast 



108 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

into the lake of fire" (Rev. xx, 14); "And he 
shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and 
death shall be no more ; neither shall there be 
mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more : the 
first things are passed away. And he that sitteth 
on the throne said, Behold, I make all things 
new ' (Rev. xxi, 4, 5) ; " And there shall be no 
curse any more ' (Rev. xxii, 3). We will con- 
sider these in the order given. 

" For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, 
that he might have mercy upon all." The import 
of this verse is no doubt identical with that of 
Rom. iii, 9: "For we before laid to the charge 
both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under 
sin,' and Gal. iii, 22 : " Howbeit the Scripture 
hath shut up all things under sin, that the prom- 
ise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to 
them that believe." This last passage distinctly 
limits the "promise by faith in Jesus Christ' to 
" them that believe." This is in keeping with 
the whole teaching of Romans (for example, iii, 
21, 22) and the other Scriptures, and must be 
understood here. 

" For to this end Christ died, and lived again, 
that he might be Lord of both the dead and the 
living." The apostle is teaching the duty of the 
strong toward the weak, particularly in the mat- 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 109 

ter of eating meat and observing days. He as- 
serts: u He that regardeth the day, regardeth 
it unto the Lord : and he that eateth, eateth 
unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks ; 
and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he 
eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For 
none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to 
himself. For whether we live, we live unto the 
Lord ; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord : 
whether we live therefore, or die, we are the 
Lord's' (verses 6-8). And then follows imme- 
diately upon this the verse we are considering. 
The connections clearly show that the lordship 
of Christ over the dead and the living is confined 
by the apostle's thought in this passage to be- 
lievers ; not that it is intentionally so confined, 
but because Paul had no occasion to think of any 
others. " Whether we live, we live unto the Lord ; 
or whether we die, we die unto the Lord : whether 
we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.' 
Christ both " died, and lived again," that he might 
be Lord of his own, dead and alive. " Thus it 
is,' as Godet says, " that he reigns simulta- 
neously over the two domains of being through 
which his own are called to pass, and that he can 
fulfill his promise to them (John x, 28) : 'None 
shall pluck them out of my hand ' (Commen- 



110 FUTURE RETRIBUTION, 

tary, in loco). The Universalist, therefore, can find 
in this passage no valid ground for his doctrine. 
" For to this end we labor and strive, because 
we have our hope set on the living God, who is 
the Saviour of all men, specially of them that 
believe/' As to this passage it is only necessary 
to say that if Paul is to be interpreted by him- 
self the two phrases, " Saviour of all men " and 
" specially of them that believe," can have no 
doubtful meaning. The first is illustrated by 
such passages as the following : " Even so through 
one act of righteousness the free gift came unto 
all men to justification of life' (Rom. v, 18) ; 
" For the love of Christ constraineth us ; because 
we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore 
all died ; and he died for all, that they which 
live should no longer live unto themselves, but 
unto him who for their sakes died and rose again 
(2 Cor. v, 14, 15) ; the second, by these : " For I 
am not ashamed of the gospel : for it is the 
power of God unto salvation to every one that 
believeth ; to the Jew first, and also to the 
Greek ! (Rom. i, 16); " By their unbelief they 
were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith ' 
(Rom. xi, 20). Christ is the Saviour of all men — 
this the Scriptures every-where gloriously reveal ; 
but he is also " specially (jidhiora — " in the 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. \\\ 

greatest degree" — that is, in " the greatest and 
fullest exhibition of his ocjTrjpta, its complete re- 
alization ") the Saviour " of them that believe.' 1 
This is so here and hereafter. Christ is the 
Saviour of all in his provisions of mercy and 
grace ; of those that believe, in the full realiza- 
tion of those provisions in a saved experience. 

"And death and Hades were cast into the 
lake of fire." It is said this involves the destruc- 
tion of death and Hades. The inference is, 
u Therefore the second death and Gehenna ;" this 
latter from the fact that Hades, or the under 
world, includes Gehenna. 

It will be sufficient to refute this argument to 
refer to the verse immediately following the one 
for which so much is claimed. After saying 
death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire, 
John says : " And if any was not found written 
in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of 
fire " (verse 1 5). It is unfortunate for the Univer- 
salist that he cannot find a second " lake of fire ' 
into which this first one is cast ; and if so it would 
not involve the restoration of those cast into it. 

Attempted arguments like the above simply 
increase one's wonder at the manifest unfairness 
of the exposition of the Scriptures by which the 
doctrine of restoration is sought to be established. 



112 FUTURE RETRIBUTION, 

The last two passages may be considered to- 
gether. *■ And he shall wipe away every tear 
from their eyes ; and death shall be no more ; 
neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor 
pain, any more : the first things are passed away. 
And he that sitteth on the throne said, Behold, 
I make all things new." " And there shall be no 
curse any more/' If the reader will examine the 
passages in their connections he will find in both 
cases that after them in the same chapter there 
is distinct reference to another state of things 
for the wicked. In the first case, in chapter xxi, 
8, we have, " But for the fearful, and unbelieving, 
and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, 
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their 
part shall be in the lake that burneth with 
fire and brimstone ; which is the second death/' 
In the second case, in the twenty-second chap- 
ter and the fifteenth verse, we have, " Without 
are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornica- 
tors, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and 
every one that loveth and maketh a lie/ From 
these facts it must appear to all that the passages 
cited furnish no support for the doctrine of resto- 
ration. But if examination is made again it will 
be found that these things are said by explicit 
reference to the righteous. " He that overcometh 



OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. H3 

shall inherit these things " (xxi, 7). In the same 
verse with the second of the two passages is this : 
" And his servants shall do him service," and fol- 
lowing this in the next verse : " And they shall see 
his face ; and his name shall be on their foreheads." 
We have now completed a brief survey of the 
leading objections and arguments of the Univer- 
salists. We have not consciously omitted refer- 
ence to any important fact or consideration ; but, 
on the other hand, we have endeavored to deal 
fairly with the doctrine we oppose in every case, 
a hundred times wishing that we might find in 
the arguments of its advocates some valid 
ground for faith in it to rest upon. To use a 
common but apt figure, again and again, like the 
dove of the ark, we have wandered over the 
waste of biblical criticism on this subject, seek- 
ing some place to rest our feet in confidence ; 
but after repeated and vain research we have 
had to return, on exegetical grounds, to the old 
ark of the orthodox Church, and believe her 
teaching to be that only which will bear the test 
of the Scriptures. For no " larger hope ' ' can 
we desert this stronghold of the truth ; and in 
this confidence it shall be our aim, whether our 
pleasure or not (Jon. iii, 2), to persuade men to 

44 flee from the wrath to come " (Matt, iii, 7). 

8 



"And if any man shall take away from the words of the 
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the 
book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things 
which are written in this book." — Rev. xxii, 19. 



CHAPTER III. 

New Testament Terminology Respecting Future Ret- 
ribution, 

IT is not our conviction that the words of the 
Bible in either their classical or Jewish signi- 
fication, or in themselves, considered in an iso- 
lated fashion and alone, can at all determine the 
question of the future life. Their biblical signi- 
fication is rather to be determined by the general 
scope and spirit of the passages in which they 
are found, and by the whole teaching of the 
Scriptures on the subject by all the proof ad- 
duced in the first chapter of this book. Remem- 
bering these qualifications, however, a study of 
the subject from the present stand-point will not 
be without its results, and seems necessary to a 
full understanding of all the facts in the case. 

The terms that demand attention may be 
classified and treated as follows: i. Those that 
pertain to the place of future punishment, adrjg 
— Hades (Heb. 7ix$) ; yeevva — Gehenna; rapra- 
puaag — Tartarus ; </>p£«p, dPvaoog, Xljivr] rov nvpog. 
2. Those that pertain to time, or the duration of 



116 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

punishment, alcov (with its plural forms and 
phrases), aluvcog, didiog. 3. Those that describe 
the condition or state of the lost, ddvarog, 
dncjXeia, wn6\Xv\ii, oXedpog, e^oXodpevo), diatpOeipG), 
dnofCTelvG), (pQopd, afiavi^o), etc. This we believe 
to be an exhaustive classification of the more 
important terms used in connection with the 
subject, and in this order we will briefly consider 
them.* 

1. Those that pertain to the place of future 
punishment. Three of these, ddrjg, yeevva, rapra- 
pcboag, are in all instances alike translated in the 
Authorized Version (two of them, yeevva, Tapra- 
pdxrag, in the Revised, with an additional marginal 
reading) by the English word " hell/' These we 
will consider first in their order, and follow with 
a short account of the remaining words. 

f 'Ai6rjg, translated " hell " in the Authorized Ver- 
sion and " Hades ' in the Revised in every in- 



* We omit reference here to the words Kplvco, nciTanpivG), Kpijua, 
Kploig (translated " to damn " and " damnation " in the Authorized 
Version, but, rightly, "judged" [2 Thess. ii, 12], "condemned" 
[Mark xvi, 16], "condemnation" [Mark xii, 40], "judgment" 
[Matt, xxiii, 33] in the Revised), because in the nature of the 
case their signification is very general, and they therefore express 
nothing definite either as to the duration or the character of 
future punishment. In the phrase "judgment of hell " (Greek 
Gehenna), for example, the word that conveys a definite mean- 
ing is " hell," not npioiQ. 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 117 

stance,* is derived, according to etymologists, 
from a privative and Idelv, to see, signifying that 
which is not seen. It is used in the Septuagint 
in translating the Hebrew ?)#& in most instances, 
a word with which it is identical in several par- 
ticulars. In the Greek writings (always in Homer) 
it is used as the name of Pluto or Dis, the god of 
the spirit-world. It was also used in these writ- 
ings to signify the spirit-world itself. In later 
Greek this became its more common meaning. In 
the New Testament it is undoubtedly identical in 
meaning with the secondary .classical significa- 
tion, except that in classic usage it was under- 
stood to signify the permanent abode of the 
dead, whereas in the New Testament it signifies 
the abode of the dead before the resurrection 
(Rev. xx, 14). In two instances it is personified 
as a living power (Rev. vi, 8 ; xx, 14). In other 
instances it has a metaphorical signification 
(Matt, xi, 23; Luke x, 15). There can be no 
doubt, moreover, that it was used to represent 
the after-death abode of the righteous and the 
unrighteous alike (Luke xvi, 23 ; compare Acts 
ii, 27, 31). In this respect it was kindred in its 

* In 1 Cor. xv, 55 (where in the Authorized Version we have 
"grave," dfiqg), Odvaroq is substituted for adrjq, according to the 
best manuscripts, and is so given in the Revised Version. 



118 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

use to that of the Greek and Latin writers, who 
divided Hades into Tartarus for the bad and 
Elysium for the good. But it seems equally 
certain that it was used sometimes as equivalent 
simply to the abode of wicked spirits (Matt, xvi, 
1 8). It is on this supposition, moreover, that 
the metaphorical use of the word in Matt, xi, 23, 
and Luke x, 15, can have any significance. In 
both this latter respect and the one preceding 
it is the same as the Hebrew ?1K# (Gen. xlii, 
38; Psa. ix, 17; Psa. cxxxix, 8; Prov. ix, 18). 
In all general respects the usage was the same 
in the Jewish and early Christian writings out- 
side of the Scriptures."* 

As to the common impressions that prevailed 
concerning this unseen world, a remark or two 
may be made. In both classic and Jewish writ- 
ings it was thought of as being in the earth, or 
under it, according to the false astronomy of the 
times ; and the grave was supposed to be the 
entrance into it. As Christ did not come to 



* Later, however, the fathers located Paradise (the place of 
the righteous dead) elsewhere than in Hades. " Origen placed it 
in an apartment of heaven — the third heaven. More and more 
the feeling spread, especially after Origen's time, that Hades, 
the under-world, was a gloomy, undesirable region, where there 
could .be nothing but suffering, and where Satan held sway " 
{Discussions in History and Theology, G. P. Fisher, p. 417). 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 119 

teach science, he, together with the writers of 
the New Testament, used the common forms of 
thought and expression in the matter as he 
found them. The Old Testament idea of this 
world seems to have been that of a shadowy and 
somewhat dismal abode even for the righteous 
(Psa. vi, 5 ; Job x, 21, 22). Its expressions con- 
cerning it were vague and uncertain. Unlike 
this was Hades to the heathen writers. " The 
pagan poets gave the popular mind definite 
pictures of Tartarus and Elysium ; of Styx and 
Acheron ; of happy plains where dead heroes 
held high discourse, and of black abysses where 
offenders underwent strange and ingenious tort- 
ures." The New Testament idea was more 
definite, and more cheerful for the good. It 
was divided into Paradise, or Abraham's bosom 
(the Jews also spoke of it as the " Garden of 
Eden ' and the " Tree of Life " — Edersheim), 
for the righteous, and Gehenna for the wicked. 
It is thought by some writers that the New 
Testament represents the saints since the res- 
urrection as going immediately upon death to 
heaven. There certainly seems, in some in- 
stances at least, to be a changed attitude and 
expression toward the other life. Witness, for 
example, the case of Stephen when stoned (Acts 



120 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

vn > 55> 5 6, 59. Compare Phil, i, 21, 23, etc. ; but 
see also p. 127). 

The passages in the New Testament where 
the word «&?<: is given are as follows : " And 
thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto 
heaven ? thou shalt go down unto Hades : for if 
the mighty works had been done in Sodom 
which were done in thee, it would have remained 
until this day" (Matt, xi, 23); " And I also say 
unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this 
rock I will build my church ; and the gates of 
Hades shall not prevail against it " (Matt, xvi, 
18); " And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be ex- 
alted unto heaven ? thou shalt be brought down 
unto Hades " (Luke x, 15); "And in Hades he 
lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth 
Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom ' 
(Luke xvi, 23) ; " Because thou wilt not leave my 
soul in Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy 
One to see corruption/' " Pie foreseeing this 
spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that 
neither was he left in Hades, nor did his flesh 
see corruption " (Acts ii, 27, 31); "And I was 
dead, and behold,* I am alive for evermore, and 
I have the keys of death and of Hades ' ' (Rev. 
i, 18); "And I saw, and behold, a pale horse: 
and he that sat upon him, his name was death ; 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 12 1 

and Hades followed with him " (Rev. vi, 8); 
" And the sea gave up the dead which were in 
it; and death and Hades gave up the dead 
which were in them : and they were judged 
every man according to their works. And death 
and Hades were cast into the lake of fire " (Rev. 
xx, 13, 14). 

rievva. This word is the Grecized form of the 
Hebrew D3n % valley of Hinnom — or more fully 
DSrrja feTO, or DSrHB % The etymology of the word 
D3n is uncertain. Some suppose it is the name 
of a man. Others think it is derived from a root 
signifying " lamentation/' in reference to the 
cry of the children offered in sacrifice to Molech 
in the valley of Its name. 

This valley (also called Tophet, most probably 
from the root *pn, "to spit upon/ hence "ab- 
horred ") was on the south and west of Jerusa- 
lem. It is first mentioned in the Scriptures in 
Josh, xv, 8 ; xviii, 16, in connection with the 
description of the boundaries of the territories 
of Judah and Benjamin. In the time of Solo- 
mon the worship of Molech — a bull-shaped image 
into whose burning arms the Jews learned to 
cast their children — was set up in it (1 Kings xi, 
7), and Ahaz set the example for the people of 
making his own " son to pass through the fire, 



122 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

according to the abominations of the heathen ' 
(2 Kings xvi, 3). These rites continued to be 
practiced until the time of Josiah, who " defiled " 
the place and overthrew the heathenish worship 
(2 Kings xxiii, 10). On account of the horrible 
rites there practiced the Jews afterward made 
the valley the common place of sewage for the 
filth of the city. The carcasses of animals and 
the bodies of criminals were also thrown into it. 
A fire was kept burning in it for the purpose of 
destroying these things and to prevent pesti- 
lence. These facts made the place afterward to 
be looked upon as a symbol of the place of 
future punishment. Hence "Gehenna" be- 
came the name of the place of the lost in Hades, 
and was so used by the Jews in the time of 
Christ. 

The term yeevva is used in the New Testa- 
ment twelve times, in every instance but one 
(Jas. iii, 6) in the gospels. Twice it is used in 
the phrase yeevva rov nvpog — " Gehenna of fire ' 
(Matt, v, 22 ; xviii, 9). Once we have vlog yeevvrjg 
— "son of Gehenna ' (Matt, xxiii, 15) — and once 
Kpioiq T?jg yeevvrjg — "judgment of Gehenna' 
(Matt, xxiii, 33). 

The passages in which the word is found are 
as follows: " But I say unto you, that every one 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 123 

who is angry with his brother shall be in danger 
of the judgment ; and whosoever shall say to 
his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the 
council ; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, 
shall be in danger of the hell of fire " (Matt, v, 
22) ; " And if thy right eye causeth thee to 
stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee : for 
it is profitable for thee that one of thy members 
should perish, and not thy whole body be cast 
into hell. And if thy right hand causeth thee 
to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee : 
for it is profitable for thee that one of thy 
members should perish, and not thy whole 
body go into hell " (Matt, v, 29, 30); "And be 
not afraid of them which kill the body, but are 
not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him 
which is able to destroy both soul and body in 
hell " (Matt, x, 28) ; "And if thine eye causeth 
thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from 
thee : it is good for thee to enter into life with 
one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast 
into the hell of fire " (Matt, xviii, 9) ; "Woe 
unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for 
ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte ; 
and when he is become so, ye make him twofold 
more a son of hell than yourselves " (Matt, xxiii, 
15); "Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how 



124 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

shall ye escape the judgment of hell?" (Matt, 
xxiii, 33); " And if thy hand cause thee to 
stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter 
into life maimed, rather than having thy two 
hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire. 
And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: 
it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather 
than having thy two feet to be cast into hell. 
And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it 
out: it is good for thee to enter into the king- 
dom of God with one eye, rather than having 
two eyes to be cast into hell ; where their worm 
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched ! ' (Mark 
ix, 43, 45, 47); " But I will warn you whom ye 
shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed 
hath power to cast into hell ; yea, I say unto 
you, Fear him " (Luke xii, 5) ; " And the tongue 
is a fire : the world of iniquity among our mem- 
bers is the tongue, which defileth the whole 
body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, 
and is set on fire by hell " (Jas. iii, 6). 

Taprapuoag. This word is found but once in 
the Bible (2 Pet. ii, 4), and is translated " hell ! 
in both versions. It is the aorist participle of 
the verb raprapdco — " to hurl into Tartarus " — and 
is used as a noun for rdprapoc; — Tartarus. 

Tdprapoc; signified to the Greeks in their older 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 125 

writings a place below Hades as far as the latter 
was below heaven. Tliis was the prison of the 
Titans, and the place into which Zeus threw 
" the worst offenders against his authority." In 
the later writers it was used to signify the under- 
world in general (hence synonomous with 
Hades), and, particularly, as one part of Hades, 
the abode of wicked spirits, as over against 
Elysium, the place of the good (Liddell and 
Scott). It was used chiefly in this latter signifi- 
cation. 

The passage in Peter in which the word is 
found reads as follows : " For if God spared not 
angels when they sinned, but cast them down to 
hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, 
to be reserved unto judgment : . . . the Lord 
knoweth how to deliver the godly out of tempta- 
tion, and to keep the unrighteous under punish- 
ment unto the day of judgment." 

When it is remembered that for the incurably 
wicked the Greeks knew no restoration from 
Tartarus, the intent of the apostle in using the 
word in this passage cannot be doubtful. 

If it is objected that Peter expressly limits the 
state of things described in the passage to the 
time of ''judgment," in response we would refer 
the reader to the fact already given, that wicked 



126 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

men and devils are to suffer an aeonian punish- 
ment after the judgment. Granting, therefore, 
that the passage here teaches a punishment to 
last only until the judgment, the other passages 
referred to settle the question of punishment 
after that event. 

<&peap, d/3voGog, \i\Lvr\ rov rrvpog. These words 
may be considered together. The first is used 
seven times in the New Testament, three times 
translated " well " (Luke xiv, 5 [in A. V. " pit "]; 
John iv, 11, 12), four times (Rev. ix, 1, 2), ^ pit." 
In this latter connection it is used twice with 
dpvooog, and is translated in the Revised Version 
" the pit of the abyss/' In the four places in Rev- 
elation it seems to be identical in signification 
with Gehenna and Tartarus in Hades. "APveoog 
— " abyss' ' — is in Rom. x, 7, and Rev. ix, 1, 2, 
used of the under-world in general. In the first 
case reference is made to Christ's descent into 
Hades. In Rev. ix, 1, 2, the " pit " is in the 
abyss. In other places it seems to signify 
simply Gehenna, Tartarus, or the "pit/ 1 The 
demons of Luke viii, 31, requested that they 
might not be sent into the "abyss' (apvaoog). 
So, also, Rev. ix, 11 ; xi, 7; xvii, 8; xx, 1, 3. 
The phrase XI\lvt\ rov nvpog — "lake of fire" — is 
found only in Revelation, and in every case 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 127 

signifies the place of future punishment. In one 
case the phrase is " lake of fire and brimstone ' 
— deiov — (chap, xx, 10); in another, " the lake 
that burneth with fire and brimstone ' (chap. 
xxi, 8); once, "the lake of fire that burneth 
with brimstone ' (chap, xix, 20). Twice the 
" lake of fire ' is identified with the " second 
death " (chap, xx, 14; xxi, 8). From Rev. xx, 
14, " and death and Hades were cast into the 
lake of fire/' we might infer that " the lake of 
fire" is meant to signify the place of the 
KoXaatg aluviog after the judgment, Hades as the 
place of the righteous and unrighteous dead 
alike no longer existing, the " world " and the 
saved having been " perfected," or consummated 
(Matt, xxviii, 20 ; Phil, i, 6). 

2. The second class of terms, as we have 
named them, are those that pertain to the dura- 
tion of future punishment. 

First among these is al&v. The most gener- 
ally received etymology connects this word with 
dec (always), and makes it identical with the 
Latin cevum, from which we get the English 
aye or ever, deriving Greek, Latin, and English 
ultimately from the Sanskrit evas. The signifi- 
cations of the word are not doubtful either in 
the classics or the Scriptures. In the former 



128 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

the word signifies " an age," " human life-time," 
*' life itself;" also, " an unbroken age, perpetuity 
of time, eternity.' With its classic usage corre- 
sponds in some particulars its use in the Septua- 
gint (in translating the Hebrew Evty) and in the 
New Testament. In both of these, however, it 
has significations peculiar to themselves. We 
are concerned chiefly with the use of the word 
in the New Testament. Here it signifies: 

v_> 

(i) An age. In this sense it is used to signify 
a dispensation, or economy. The Jews were in 
the habit of dividing time into two periods, that 
which preceded the Messiah (n : tn B?iyn), and that 
which would be after his advent (K2n D?tyn). 
The New Testament writers adopted the same 
division of time, and in a number of instances 
referred to the present age preceding the 
parousia as 6 aluyv ovrog — this age (Rom. xii, 2), 
6 aldjv — the age (Matt, xiii, 22), 6 eveorcbg au'ov — . 
the present, or existing age (Gal. i, 4), b vvv aiojv 
— the now age (1 Tim. vi, 17) ; to that which 
will succeed the parousia as aluv iieXXuv — the 
future age (Matt, xii, 32), 6 alcbv etcelvog — that age 
(Luke xx, 35), b al&v b ep%6[ievog — the coming age 
(Luke xviii, 30). In some instances the word 
seems synonomous with " the time of life," or, at 
least, it involves this idea. Hence Demas is 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 129 

condemned for having loved " the now age " — 
dyairr\aag rov vvv alcova (2 Tim. iv, 10) ; there is 
a wisdom which is " of this age " — oofita rov 
alcovog rovrov (1 Cor. ii, 6. Compare, also, 1 Cor. 
i, 20; Luke xvi, 8 ; Eph. ii, 2). 

(2) " By metonomy of the container for the 
contained, ol altiveg denotes tlie worlds, the uni- 
verse, that is, the aggregate of things contained 
in time," as opposed to Koa^og, or the world as 
contained in space. Thus we have : " Through 
whom also he made the worlds " — rovg al&vag 
(Heb. i, 2); " By faith we understand that the 
worlds — rovg alcbvag — have been framed by the 
word of God " (Hcb. xi, 3). 

(3) Another signification of the term is dura- 
tion without limitation, or forever. Thus in 
2 Pet. iii, 18, we have: "To him be the glory 
both now and forever" — elg rjfiepav alcovog, liter- 
ally, " unto the day which is eternity." In John 
vi, 51, we have: " If any man eat of this bread he 
shall live forever " — elg rov alcbva, etc. Other 
forms of the word that express the same idea 
are elg ndvrag rovg alcbvag — unto ail the ages 
(Jude 25) ; elg rovg alcbvag rcbv alcbvcov — unto the 
ages of the ages (Rev. i, 6, etc.). When these 
phrases are used with a negative particle, as 

ov \ir\ y or simply ov y they signify an unqualified 
9 



130 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

never ^ or not forever. Examples are as follows : 
" But whosoever drinketh of the water that 
I shall give him shall never thirst " — ov p) 
6i\pr\aet elg rov alcov a (J ohn iv, 14); " Wherefore, if 
meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat 
no flesh for evermore " — ov firj (jxiyco apea elg rov 
altiva (1 Cor. viii, 13); " And the bond-servant 
abideth not in the house forever " — ov fievei ev 
t'q oltcla elg rov altiva (John viii, 35). 

(4) In some cases the word signifies simply a 
very long time. " The same were the mighty 
men which were of old*' — an' alcbvog (Gen. vi, 4. 
Compare, also, Luke i, 70; John ix, 32 ; Acts iii, 
21 ; xv, 18). 

From the substantive alojv is derived the ad- 
jective alojviog. That this word is used to signify 
u everlasting " would never have been questioned 
but for the possible implication of this fact in 
relation to the doctrine of future punishment. 
In the following instances it undoubtedly bears 
this meaning. " The eternal God ' (Rom. xvi, 
26) ; " For we know that if the earthly house of 
our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building 
from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, 
in the heavens ' (2 Cor. v, 1) ; " The eternal 
Spirit ' (Heb. ix, 14) ; " And for this cause he is 
the mediator of a new covenant, that a death 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY, 131 

having taken place for the redemption of the 
transgressions that were under the first covenant, 
they that have been called may receive the 
promise of the eternal inheritance " (Heb. ix, 
15) ; " Therefore I endure all things for the elect's 
sake, that they also may obtain the salvation 
which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory : 
(2 Tim. ii, 10), etc. 

It is also used, however, metaphorically or 
poetically (Hab. iii, 6) to signify indefinite or 
long time. But we would suggest that its 
metaphorical and poetic use is grounded upon, 
and derives its force from, its absolute significa- 
tion. An illustration may be given in the use of 
our own word " eternal.' Because this word 
signifies to us " everlasting ' in an absolute sense, 
therefore its metaphorical use, as when we say 
"eternal hills " or "eternal laws," etc., has the force 
of meaning that such expressions convey to us. 

The same remark maybe made concerning the 
use of alojvtog in other than strictly metaphorical 
significations. Examples are as follows : " And 
I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, 
the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, 
for an everlasting possession ' (Gen. xvii, 8) ; 
"And this shall be an everlasting statute unto 
you " (Lev. xvi, 34). In these and other instances 



132 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

the absolute signification of the word furnishes 
ground for its secondary and limited use. 

The Septuagint use of al&v and altivtog is of in- 
terest as illustrating the New Testament use, the 
latter in many respects being derived from the 
former. There they are used in translating Dpiy 
and *iy (with their plural forms, reduplications, 
and combinations), with which they have very 
similar meanings, though different etymological 
ideas. Some of the corresponding forms in 
Hebrew and Greek are as follows: tbvj = alo)v ; 
tbSyh — elg rdv alo)va ; D^iy D^ty — alcbveg tcjv ahovuv ; 
*iy TOiyny — fc'O)^ rov altivog eri- u unto the time of 
eternity and on ;" t^W\V—alC)viog. The following 
passages are examples in addition to those given 
above : " And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not 
strive with man forever' (Gen. vi, 3); "As I 
live forever ' (Deut. xxxii, 40) ; " One genera- 
tion goeth, and another generation cometh ; and 
the earth abideth forever ' (Eccl. i, 4); " But 
Israel shall be saved by the Lord with an ever- 
lasting salvation : ye shall not be ashamed nor 
confounded world without end ' (Isa. xlv, 17). 

When all the recognized and indisputable uses 
of alojv and aluviog in classic and in Old and 
New Testament writings are taken into the ac- 
count, their influence in determining the question 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 133 

of the duration of future punishment is in them- 
selves alone of little worth ; but in connection 
with all the facts given on the subject, remember- 
ing their possible signification of " everlasting,' 
they are of great importance."* 

'Aidiog. This word is found but twice in the 
New Testament, once in Rom. i, 20, " For the 
invisible things of him since the creation of the 
world are clearly seen, being perceived through 
the things that are made, even his everlasting 
[d£&of] power and divinity," and once in Jude 6, 
" And angels which kept not their own princi- 
pality, but left their proper habitation, he hath 
kept in everlasting [d«$/o*£] bonds under darkness 
unto the judgment of the great day." 

Much capital is made by some writers out of 
the fact that aidiog, which, as they assert, is a 
much stronger word than aluviog, is used but once 
in the New Testament in connection with the 
subject of future punishment. And then, they 
assert, where it is so used it cannot signify eternal 
punishment ; for the " everlasting bonds " in which 
the fallen angels are kept " under darkness" last 
only "unto the judgment of the great day. ,! 

*We doubt if any orthodox writer claims more for these 
words, and yet many writers of the opposite class expend much 
time and labor in proving that the words do not always in the 
Scriptures signify " eternity." 



134 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

Besides what has already been two or three 
times said as to the punishment of the lost after 
the judgment, we may ask if this word signifies 
so much more than a'uoviog in the New Testa- 
ment, as these writers assert. Paul, as we have 
seen, is the only writer besides Jude who uses 
the word. The signification of the word as used 
by him is not uncertain ; but this same apostle 
who speaks of the " aidian ' power and divinity 
of God speaks also in another place of the 
"seonian [al&vcog'] God " (Rom. xvi, 26). Did he 
mean more when he used aiSiog in the one case 
than when he used al&viog in the other ? Can 
we translate " everlasting power and divinity " in 
the one case and " age-long God " in the other, 
and believe the apostle had any such distinction 
in his thought? Must we not regard his use of 
the words as not only synonomous, but identical ? 
Besides, St. Jude, in the same passage in which 
he speaks of " aidian bonds/ speaks also of 
" seonian fire " (jrvp al&viov). Did he mean more 
by the one word than by the other ? or did he 
use them as interchangeable ? 

Whatever the passage in Jude may or may 
not signify as to the punishment of the lost, we 
are persuaded from the above considerations that 
the claim that atdiog would have been a better 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 135 

word in general to express the orthodox doctrine 
of future punishment than al&vios has no foun- 
dation in the facts in the case. Indeed, this is 
tacitly, though inconsistently, granted in the as- 
sertion above referred to, that did tog in the pas- 
sage in question does not mean " everlasting." 

3. Our third class of words are those that per- 
tain to the condition or state of the lost. These 
terms are those upon which the Annihilationist 
bases his claim. As to this doctrine we will 
have more to say further on. For the present 
we are to deal with the terms simply from the 
stand-point of the present chapter. They are in 
all general respects identical, and so may be 
briefly considered together. 

The claim made for them is that they signify 
the total destruction, not the eternal punishment, 
of the lost. This assertion is based partly upon 
the use of the terms in the Greek writers. Thus 
White says, " No fact in literature is capable of 
clearer demonstration than that the majority of 
these nouns and verbs, denoting destruction of 
some sort, are used by Plato again and again in 
the Phcedon> a dialogue on immortality, expressly 
for the purpose of conveying the idea of the lit- 
eral destruction or extinction of the soul 9 (Life in 
Christ, p. 360). " They are precisely the terms 



136 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

generally chosen in the New Testament to de- 
note the punishment of the wicked, with this 
difference, that Plato says the soul will not suffer 
6dvarog y drrG)Xeia P 6Xe0pog y c[)popd ; that it is not des- 
tined to a7ToXeodat y Karacj)0e/.pea6ai, diatyOeipeoQai, 
aTToQvrjoiceiv} while the New Testament writers 
declare that wicked men shall suffer what is de- 
noted by these terms. In Plato's dialogue these 
words stand tor extinction of life, for that idea 
only, and in the strongest possible contrast to 
the idea of perpetuation of being. Our argu- 
ment is that in the New Testament they signify 
precisely the same doom — the final and absolute 
extinction of life in the case of the wicked ' ' {ibid., 
p. 361). It is this latter claim that we wish chiefly 
to examine. 

A word may be said, however, as to the classic 
use of these terms. It is not denied that Plato 
used them in the sense which Mr. White claims 
for them. But it is denied that this is their com- 
mon classic signification. Dean Plumptre shows 
that the earliest use of the earliest form of a-noX- 
Xv\ii did not signify extinction of conscious be- 
ing, and reminds us that the New Testament 
writers, in their use of the words in question, 
were not influenced by Plato, but by the older 
Greek writers through the Septuagint. He says 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 137 

of the word ai:6XXv\ii in these writers : " Of any 
approach of its use in regard to men, of the de- 
struction of conscious existence, there is, so far as 
I know, not a single instance/' The colloquial 
use of the word was the same {Spirits in Prison^ 
pp. 323, 324, 327). 

That these words in their biblical use do not 
signify the annihilation of the wicked (a doctrine 
contrary to the assumed immortality of the soul 
every-where in the Scriptures), but the utter ruin 
and loss of the soul, the following facts will abun- 
dantly demonstrate : 

(1) Qdvarog (and it will not be assumed that the 
other words can assert more in the matter than 
this word, or that they can prove annihilation if 
it does not) is used concerning the soul in this 
life under sin, in which case it clearly cannot 
mean annihilation or extinction. Instances are 
as follows : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He 
that heareth my word, and believeth him that 
sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into 
judgment, but hath passed out cf death into life" 
(John v, 24). " We know that we have passed 
out of death into life, because we love the breth- 
ren " (1 John iii, 14). Instances in which the 
kindred word venpog is used are as follows : " And 
you did he quicken, when ye were dead through 



138 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

your trespasses and sins " (Eph. ii, i). " And 
you, being dead through your trespasses and 
the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did 
he quicken together with him, having forgiven 
us all our trespasses'' (Col. ii, 13). One notable 
passage in which three kindred words are found 
(ddvarog being one of them) is Rom. vii, 9-1 1 : 
"And I was alive apart from the law once: but 
when the commandment came, sin revived, and 
I died [arrodvriGKG)] ; and the commandment, which 
was unto life, this I found to be unto death \_elg 
ddvarov] : for sin, finding occasion, through the 
commandment beguiled me, and through it slew 
me [aTTOKTEtv (*)]." 

The figurative use of ddvarog, and its class of 
words, in other connections need only be referred 
to. Compare Rom. vi, 2, 7, 8, 11, etc. 

(2) 'AttoXXvilu (and with this the other words go 
likewise) is also used of a soul in sin in life. Ex- 
amples are as follows: "And he spake unto 
them this parable, saying, What man of you, 
having a hundred sheep, and having lost 
[airoXeoag~\ one of them, doth not leave the ninety 
and nine in the wilderness, and go after that 
which is lost \rb aTroXuXog], until he find it? . . . 
I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy 
in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more 



NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 139 

than over ninety and nine righteous persons, 
which need no repentance' (Luke xv, 3-7). "Or 
what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she 
lose [aTioXeoxi] one piece, doth not light a lamp, 
and sweep the house, and seek diligently until 
she find it ? . . . Even so, I say unto you, there 
is joy in the presence of the angels of God over 
one sinner that repenteth" (Luke xv, 8-10). 
" For the Son of man came to seek and to save 
that which was lost [to dixoXbyXog] (Luke xix, 
10) ; " For this my son . . . was lost [drroXtdX^g^ 
and is found " (Luke xv, 24). 

The Septuagint use of the terms ddvarog and 
drrdXXvfit is the same as that in the New Testa- 
ment, from which the latter is derived. There 
they are used in translating the Hebrew rno and 
*nN. It will be necessary simply to quote a few 
passages in illustration. " I have gone astray 
like a lost sheep [o)g rcpdf3arov drroXoyXog'] (Psa. 
cxix, 176). " And he shall set up an ensign for 
the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts 
[rovg dnoXo[.iEvovg~\ of Israel, and gather together 
the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of 
the earth " (Isa. xi, 12). " I will seek that which 
was lost [rd d7roXo)X6g~\ " (Ezek. xxxiv, 16). "As I 
live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the 
death [ddvarog~\ of the wicked " (Ezek. xxxiii, 1 1). 



"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and 
stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have 
gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her 
chickens under her wings, and ye would not ! Behold, your 
house is left unto you desolate." — Matt, xxiii, 37, 38. 

11 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim ? how shall I deliver 
thee, Israel ? how shall I make thee as Admah ? how shall I set 
thee as Zeboim ? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings 
are kindled together." — Hos. xi, 8. 

" And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." — 
John v, 40. 

"But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth 
my. hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people." — Rom. 
X, 21. 

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear 
my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will 
sup with him, and he with me." — Rev. iii, 20. 



CHAPTER IV. 

The Ground of Future Endless Retribution ; or, For 
What the Wicked are Punished Eternally. 

IN the foregoing chapters we have considered 
the scriptural grounds of the doctrine of future 
endless retribution and presented and answered 
the objections and arguments of the Universalist, 
supplementing these considerations with a chap- 
ter on the New Testament terminology on the 
subject. It is now time to consider the question 
involved in the title of the present chapter: 
for what will the wicked be punished eternally? 
The importance of this phase of the subject 
will be manifest to every one ; especially when 
it is remembered how many false views have 
prevailed at one time or another, and in one 
part of the Christian Church or another, and how 
much confusion prevails to-day in the minds of 
many writers and teachers on both sides of the 
question with regard to it. It will be our aim 
in the present chapter to gather together the 
facts and considerations involved in this inquiry, 
and to seek the true solution of the difficulty in 



142 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

the answer of the Scriptures. We propose to 
consider first the things for which men will not 
be punished forever, or false views upon the sub- 
ject, and then, positively, that for which they will 
be thus punished, or the ground of eternal guilt. 

Things for which the Wicked Will Not 
be Punished Eternally. 

In general terms it may be said that no man 
will be punished in the other life for that over 
which he had no control, or for things for which 
he was not responsible, in this life. We have 
no doctrine upon the subject which denies the 
position that ability and responsibility are com- 
mensurate ; none which assigns man to perdition 
for any other cause than personal demerit. The 
following doctrines cannot, therefore, be true : 

I. That which assigns men to hell for the sin 
of Adam. This doctrine has played an influen- 
tial part in the theology of the Church from the 
days of Augustine to the present time, and still 
lingers in creeds that do not trace their paternity 
through any direct line to this ancient father. A 
few sample quotations embodying the venerable 
error will be in place. The first we take from 
the Augsburg Confession, the first and most 
generally received symbol of the Lutheran 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 143 

Church. Ill Article II, on "Original Sin,' it 
says: 

" Also they [' the churches with common con- 
sent among us'~ teach that, after Adam's fall, all 
men begotten after the common course of nature 
are born with sin ; that is, without the fear of 
God, without trust in him, and with fleshly appe- 
tite ; and that this disease, or original fault, is 
truly sin, condemning and bringing eternal death 
now also upon all that are not born again by 
baptism and the Holy Spirit " (SchafTs Creeds 
of Christe?tdom, vol. iii, p. 8). 

In the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of 
England, on the same subject, Article IX, is the 
following : 

" Original sin standeth not in the following of 
Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) ; but it is 
the fault and corruption of the nature of every 
man, that naturally is engendered of the off- 
spring of Adam ; whereby man is very far gone 
from original righteousness, and is of his own 
nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth 
always contrary to the spirit ; and therefore in ev- 
ery person born into this world, it deserveth God's 
wrath and damnation* . . ." {ibid., vol. iii, p. 493). 

* It should be remembered that this last clause was left out of our 
"Articles of Religion " when abridged from the Thirty-Nine of 



144 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

Once more, in the Westminster Confession of 
Faith, Article VI, "Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, 
and of the Punishment Thereof/' is the following : 

" Every sin, both original and actual, being a 
transgression of the righteous law of God, and 
contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring 
guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over 
to the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so 
made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, 
temporal, and eternal" (ibid. y p. 616). 

We repudiate this doctrine as irrational and 
unscriptural. We are concerned with it mostly, 
however, as unscriptural. This the following facts 
will demonstrate: 

(i) The Scriptures every-where represent the 
guilt of man as personal, and not hereditary. 
Witness the following illustrative passages : " I 
the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even 
to give every man according to his ways, accord- 
ing to the fruit of his doings ' (Jer. xvii, 10) ; 
" The soul that sinneth, it shall die ; ' " The 
soul that sinneth, it shall die : the son shall not 
bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the 
father bear the iniquity of the son ; the right- 

the Church of England by Mr. Wesley, and adopted by the Christ- 
mas Conference of 1784. As a Church we are, therefore, com- 
mitted against the error. 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 145 

eousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and 
the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him ' 
(Ezek. xviii, 4, 20); " And I say unto you, that 
every idle word that men shall speak, they shall 
give account thereof in the day of judgment' 
(Matt, xii, 36) ; " Who will render to every man 
according to his works ' (Rom. ii, 6 ; compare 
Psa. lxii, 12; Prov. xxiv, 12; Jer. xxxii, 19; 
Matt, xvi, 27 ; 2 Cor. v, 10 ; Rev. ii, 23 ; xx, 
12; xxii, 12); " So then each one of us shall 
give account of himself to God (Rom.- xiv, 
12). And nowhere is it said in the Scriptures 
that a man shall give account to God for the sin 
of Adam, or of any one but himself. 

Depravity is inherited, but not guilt ; and it is 
with reference to this fact that all the passages 
that are frequently urged to prove inherited 
guilt, such as Eph. ii, 3, " And were by nature 
children of wrath," * and Rom. v, 12-21, find 
their proper interpretation. 

* We include Eph. ii, 3, among this class of passages because 
it is one of the strongholds of the advocates of inherited guilt, 
and by opponents of this doctrine is said simply to teach genetic 
depravity ; but we question if it has any direct reference to 
44 original sin " in any sense. In the light of the context (verses 
1-10) the passage seems to teach simply that those to whom it 
refers were 4< according to condition " before they received the 
gospel subjects of the divine wrath. In Paul's thought the 
contrast in the passage is between the Ephesian Christians as 
10 



146 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

(2) In the New Testament representations of 
the judgment the lost are assigned to punish- 
ment solely for their own sins. Examine Matt. 
xxv, 41-46; 2 Pet. ii ; Rev. xx, 12-15; xxii, 
10-15. In all of these passages the punishment 
of the wicked is represented as awarded on the 
ground of personal guilt in actual sin. In the 
story of Dives and Lazarus, moreover, no inti- 
mation is given that the former was in punish- 
ment for the sins of any but himself. 

2. -Again, the wicked will not be punished for- 
ever on the ground of an arbitrary reprobation. 
This doctrine differs from the one preceding in 
that it is confined to the Calvinistic creeds and 
theologies. No Arminian advocates uncondi- 
tional election and reprobation, while some do 
hold to the doctrine of hereditary guilt. 

Appealing to the only rule of faith on this as 
on every other doctrine — the Scriptures — -.we 
reject this teaching also, for the following chief 
reasons : 

(1) It contradicts the many passages which 

saved, and as living, formerly, according to the " course of this 
world," as " the rest" of the Gentiles. They, then, were "by 
nature " (<j>voet), or according to natural condition or state as liv- 
ing in sin, "children of wrath [worthy of the divine wrath; 
compare the phrase "son of Gehenna " in Matt, xxiii, 15] even 
as the rest." 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 147 

declare the free and universal purpose and pro- 
vision of God for the " sins of the whole world.'* 
Familiar examples are as follows : " Behold, 
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of 
the world ! " (John i, 29) ; " For God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth on him should not perish, 
but have eternal life {ibid., iii, 16) ; " God was 
in Christ reconciling the world unto himself* 
(2 Cor. v, 19) ; " And he is the propitiation for 
our sins ; and not for ours only, but also for the 
whole world "• (1 John ii, 2). 

The Calvinist has one all-convenient recourse 
by which he can obviate the plain import of these 
gracious words T of Scripture, namely, by dis- 
honoring God in attributing to him an insincere 
purpose, according to the teaching which as- 
cribes to him a " secret," as over against his 
" revealed," will, the one contradicting and be- 
lying the other ; God, according to the latter, 
declaring to men his willingness and desire to 
save, and according to the former, withholding 
from the non-elect " effective " grace. 

It is quite sufficient to reply to this, that if 
this assumption be true we are unable to know 
whether God's " revealed * will concerning the 
"elect*' is a sincere will ; and, for aught we can 



148 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

know to the contrary, all will be finally reprobate 
through the working out of his " secret " will. 
Thus the Calvinist by his own assumption takes 
the ground of confidence from beneath his own 
feet, and destroys all effective assurance of the 
salvation even of the saints. Thus, like the un- 
lucky mechanic, he saws off the very limb on 
which he is sitting.* 

(2) God explicitly says that he has no pleasure 
in the death of the wicked. In Ezekiel he asks 
and answers his own question pertaining to this 

* Moderate New England Calvinism (the New Haven type) 
rejected this explanation of the difficulty on the ground of two 
wills, inconsistent and contradictory, and resorted to the view 
that God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, but that it is 
incompatible with the highest good of his system as a whole to 
efficiently cause the salvation of any but the elect. These latter 
are not loved more than others, but are chosen with reference 
to the general motive named, namely, the greatest possible good 
of the system as a whole. (Fisher, Discussions in History and 
Theology, pp.325, 326.) 

This doctrine implies that the best possible system God could 
arrange involved and necessitated the unconditional reprobation 
of some men, beyond their ability to choose or receive the con- 
trary, to eternal death. It is held by Arminians (and was also 
held by the New Haven School of Calvinists) that the best pos- 
sible system, under the divine wisdom and benevolence, involves 
freedom to sin with all its consequences, actual and possible ; 
but this declares simply that the best order of things excludes 
a divine forceful prevention of sin, or the destruction of free 
moral agency. The distinctive doctrine of the New Haven the- 
ology holds that it is necessary for the best possible outcome in 
the created system that God should leave some men without 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 149 

very subject. " Have I any pleasure in the 
death of the wicked ? saith the Lord God : and 
not rather that he should return from his way, 
and live ? ' (chap, xviii, 23). The answer is in 
verse 32 of this same chapter, and in chapter 
xxxiii, 11 : " For I have no pleasure in the death 
of him that dieth, saith the Lord God : where- 
fore turn yourselves, and live ;" " Say unto them, 
As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleas- 
ure in the death of the wicked ; but that the 

the efficient and necessary means of salvation, or, in other 
words, that the unconditional damnation of some men is a neces- 
sary means of the best possible system of things. The former 
doctrine makes the free agency of men the necessary element in 
such a system ; the-latter makes divine unconditional election 
this necessary element. 

But this doctrine, while better and profounder than the older 
and more common one discussed in the text, is also freighted 
with insuperable difficulties. It devolves upon advocates of the 
doctrine to prove that the so-called necessity is real. As an as- 
sumption it can only have weight upon the truthfulness of the 
prior assumption of an unconditional election and reprobation. 
In other words, it is of significance at all only on the assumption 
that the Calvinistic doctrine of election and its corollary are 
exegetically proven. But this we do not allow. Besides, the 
doctrine is, equally with the other, contrary to the assumed abil- 
ity of all men to repent and be saved in the Scriptures, and with 
the universal provisions of grace with this end in view, also 
given in the Scriptures and admitted by the Calvinist. 

No form of Calvinism will ever be able to reconcile its doc- 
trines of partial election and grace with the freeness and pro- 
vision of grace offered to all men upon assumed conditions of 
ability on the part of all to accept salvation. 



150 FUTURE RETRIBUTION, 

wicked turn from his way and live : turn ye, 
turn ye from your evil ways ; for why will ye 
die, O house of Israel." In the New Testament 
the divine revelation is equally explicit. " Who 
willeth that all men should be saved, and come 
to the knowledge of the truth ' (i Tim. ii, 4). 
" The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, 
as some count slackness; but is long-suffering to 
you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, 
but that all should come to repentance " (2 Pet. 
iii, 9). 

In view of the positive divine declarations 
of these passages, how singular that the " good 
pleasure of his will" (Eph. i, 5) could ever have 
been made to involve, in some cases, the eternal 
and unconditional reprobation of men to death ! 
Surely it is time for a revision of the Westmin- 
ster Confession of Faith ! 

Our general Arminian position makes it un- 
necessary to notice the present false doctrine at 
any greater length. 

3. Nor will human beings be assigned to hell 
for a failure to receive what was not within 
their power to receive ; but which, through the 
neglect or providential inability of others, was 
not given to them. We refer in this place to the 
two false doctrines which have assigned persons 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 151 

to perdition for not having received baptism over 
which they had no control, and for not having 
heard the Gospel. These theological errors like- 
wise demand brief consideration. 

Both of them have occupied a large place in 
the teaching of the creeds, and are entertained 
and taught in certain large sections of the Church 
to-day. " Zwingli was the first to emancipate 
the salvation of children dying in infancy from 
the supposed indispensable condition of water- 
baptism ' (Schaffs Creeds of Christendom, vol. i, 
p. 378). " The Roman Catholic Church, in keep- 
ing with her doctrine of original sin and guilt, 
and the necessity of water-baptism for salvation 
(based upon Mark xvi, t6, and John iii, 5), teaches 
the salvation of all baptized, and the condemna- 
tion of all unbaptized children ; assigning the 
latter to the limbus infantum on the border of 
hell, where they suffer the mildest kind of pun- 
ishment, namely, the negative penalty of loss 
{poena damni, or carentia beatificce visionis), but 
not the positive pain of feeling {poena sensus). St. 
Augustine first clearly introduced this wholesale 
exclusion of all unbaptized infants from heaven" 
{ibid., p. 379). " The Lutheran creed retains sub- 
stantially the Catholic view of baptismal regen- 
eration, and hence limits infant salvation to those 



152 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

who enjoy this means of grace; allowing, how- 
ever, some exceptions within the sphere of the 
Christian Church, and making the damnation of 
unbaptized infants as mild as the case will permit. 
At present, however, there is scarcely a Luth- 
eran divine of weight w r ho would be willing to con- 
fine salvation to baptized infants ' {ibid., pp. 379, 
380). The creed of the Greek Church is in keep- 
ing with the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran."* 
As to the salvation of the heathen Dr. Schaff 
says : " Before Zwingli it was the universal opin- 
ion that there can be no salvation outside of the 
visible Church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus). 
Dante, the poet of the mediaeval Catholicism, 
assigns even Homer, Aristotle, Virgil, to hell ' 
(ut supra, p. 382). Zwingli was an exception in 
his own age. " Luther was horrified at the idea 
that even ' the godless Numa ' (!) should be 
saved, and thought that it falsified the whole 
Gospel, without which there can be no salvation ' 
{ibid). This doctrine is taught to-day. In de- 

* A strange coincidence in history is the fact that through the 
logical exigency of two false doctrines (predestinarianism and a 
false view of baptism as a necessary and saving ordinance) in- 
nocent children have been assigned to that hell whose earthly 
symbol (Ge Hinnom, the valley of Hinnom on the south and 
west of Jerusalem) was at one time the place of the worship of 
the god Molech, whose delight was in the cries of burning chil- 
dren. 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 153 

fense of it Dr. Charles Hodge says : "We must 
not charge the ignorance and consequent per- 
dition of the heathen upon God. The guilt rests 
on us. We have kept to ourselves the bread 
of life, and allowed the nations to perish' {Sys- 
tematic Theology, vol. i, p. 31). Thus Dr. Hodge 
charges the damnation of the heathen upon the 
neglect of the Church.* 

Both doctrines are alike contrary to the spirit 
and explicit teaching of the Scriptures. As to 
the first, it may be urged in general that unbap- 
tized children were by Christ declared to be ex- 
amples and subjects of his kingdom (Matt, xviii, 
2-5; xix, 13-15; Mark ix, 36, 37; x, 13-16; 
Luke xviii, 15-17). As such they could not be 
lost. It would seem a more rational inference to 
say, Because they are Christ's they should be 
baptized, than to say that they should be bap- 
tized in order to be made Christ's. f As to the 

* The history of this latter error is given at some length in 
Phunptre's Spirits in Prison, chap. vi. 

I With reference to the passages that have been urged to 
prove the damnation of children unbaptized (Mark xvi, 16 ; 
John iii, 5), it may be said : (1) That both imply the responsibility 
of those of whom they speak. In the first instance Christ evi- 
dently meant that condemnation would rest upon those who re- 
fused the Gospel. In the second case no reference is made to 
children, and the inference of their damnation if unbaptized 
from the passage assumes that Christ must deal with children 



154 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

second doctrine, it is only necessary to urge the 
words of the apostle Peter when sent to Cornel- 
ius, " Of a truth I perceive that God is no re- 
specter of persons: but in every nation he that 
feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is ac- 
ceptable to him ' (Acts x, 34, 35); and to sug- 
gest, still further, that, according to Paul in Rom. 
i and ii, and elsewhere, even Peters revelation was 
not the fullest light to come on the subject of the 
heathen in apostolic times. According to the 
former apostle the following points seem to em- 
brace the doctrine of the Scriptures upon the 
subject: (1) That the Gentile is condemned by 
disobedience to the light of nature (this includ- 
ing both the teaching of nature and the universal 
presence of the Holy Spirit [Rom. i, 20; 2, 12, 
14, 15] ; compare John i, 9) ; (2) That God does 
not require of him to live above what is revealed 
to him, or above his opportunities (Acts xvii, 
30) ; (3) That even by this standard, while con- 
in an economy of grace as he does with adults, an assumption 
without foundation in fact, as the passages above given in the 
text demonstrate. Men are sinful and responsible, children are 
not ; and it is folly in any case to draw a conclusion with refer- 
ence to the innocent and irresponsible from words intended for 
the responsible and sinful. (2) It cannot be proved that John 
iii, 5, signifies more than the necessity of the new birth by the 
Holy Spirit symbolized (not produced) by baptism. It no doubt 
involves the duty of Christian baptism. 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 155 

demned for failure, justification cannot come ; 
for none can be justified by keeping the law, 
whether that law is given in nature or in the 
Scriptures (Rom. iii, 19-30) ; (4) That while God 
requires all men to strive to live up to the meas- 
ure of light possessed, still occasional failure, or 
even continual conscious deficiency, while to be 
repented of, does not exclude from the posses- 
sion and privileges of divine sonship. Will- 
ful and persistent rejection of the light possessed 
seems the only bar to the divine favor and ac- 
ceptance.* 

Other false doctrines on the subject of eternal 
guilt are (1) That which makes subscription to a 
creed essential to salvation, and (2) That which 
makes membership in a visible church neces- 
sary. 

Illustrations of the first error are as follows : 
" Whosoever will be saved before all things, it is 
necessary that he hold the Catholic faith : which 
faith except every one do keep whole and unde- 
nted, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly" 

* In proof of this last point we refer the reader to those pas- 
sages in Paul's epistles which seek to correct sins iu many believ- 
ers, as, for example, 1 Cor. vi, 15-20 ; Eph. iv, 17-32 ; Col. iii, 
1-10. The reader is also referred for a fuller statement of this 
point to an article by the writer in the Methodist Review for 
January, 1889, pp. 79-85. 



156 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

(Symbolum Quicunque , or The Athanasian Creed, 
See the whole creed in Schaff, ut supra, vol. ii, 
pp. 66-70) ; " I do, at this present, freely pro- 
fess and truly hold this true Catholic faith, 
without which no one can be saved ' (Profes- 
sion of the Tridentine Faith, A. D., 1564. See 
Schaff, vol. i, pp. 96-98 ; vol. ii, pp. 207-210). 
The famous bull " Unam Sanctam ' of Bonifice 
VIII. (1302) declared it necessary to salvation to 
believe the Roman pontiff supreme in all secular 
(governmental) affairs, as well as spiritual, and 
the Vatican Council of 1870 confirmed this 
doctrine in its decree concerning papal abso- 
lutism and infallibility, and set its condemning 
seal upon an opposing doctrine in the following 
language : " But if any one — which may God 
avert — presume to contradict this our definition : 
let him be anathema " (Schaff, vol. ii, p. 271). 

As to the second false doctrine, the Cyprionic 
rule "extra ecclesiam nulla salus' has not only 
been applied to the heathen, but to nominal 
Christians, and even to genuine followers of 
Christ outside of some particular visible Com- 
munion. Thus " in the seventeenth century the 
Romanists excluded the Protestants, the Luther- 
ans the Calvinists, the Calvinists the Arminians, 
from the kingdom of heaven* (Schaff, as above, 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 157 

vol. i, p. 384). The Romish doctrine is no bet- 
ter to-day. 

With regard to these doctrines the following 
may be said : As to the first, (1) That while the 
New Testament makes unbelief in the Gospel a 
condemning sin (Mark xvi, 16*), there is no 
warrant for the extension of this principle to the 
creeds of men, except in so far as they embody 
and rightly interpret the Gospel ; and (2) That 
then it is safer and less misleading to place the 
condemnation on the grpund of the teaching of 
the New Testament than on the teaching of 
human creeds. Against the second doctrine, (1) 
That it contradicts the New Testament princi- 
ples above announced concerning the heathen 
(this larger relation of the Gospel to those out- 
side of the visible Church including the lesser one 
concerning the Christians in nominally Christian 
countries outside of any Church : much more 
those in the different denominations) ; (2) That 
it makes salvation depend upon an agency 
established to foster and develop the Christian 
life, not to create it. The Holy Spirit is the 
agent of eternal life (John iii, 3, 5, 7, 8); (3) That 

* According to our revisers this text is in the midst of a doubt- 
ful passage (Mark xvi, 9-20) ; but the truth it involves is given 
elsewhere (John xii, 48). 



158 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

there have been, and are to-day, devout Chris- 
tians outside of the visible Church, as, for exam- 
ple, the Society of Friends.* 

We teach it to be the duty of all to belong to 
the visible Church and receive its sacraments, 
because it is a divine institution (Matt, xvi, 1 8 ; 
i Tim. iii, 15) and means of grace, and because 
without membership in it it could not be 
sustained, and its work of saving the world and 
edifying believers properly done. We teach, 
also, that a positive refusal to unite with the 
Church, in the light of a clear conviction of this 
as a duty, will exclude from the kingdom of 
heaven. But this is placing the condemnation 
of such persons as thus refuse on the ground of 
positive sin, for " To him therefore that knoweth 
to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin 
(J as. iv, 17). All of this, however, is very 
different from making the salvation of men de- 
pend upon connection with a particular Church, 
or with any Church without qualification. 

The Ground of Eternal Guilt. 

Having considered these more prominent and 
historic errors, we now turn to the positive side. of 

* This society of Christians cannot be said to be a Church, 
because they ignore the sacraments. 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 159 

our subject : for what will the wicked be punished 
eternally ? or what is the ground of eternal guilt ? 

In our treatment of this important topic two 
very distinct questions must be taken into the 
account : (1) That for which eternal death is 
merited, and (2) That for which this death will 
be inflicted under an economy of grace. This 
division of our subject will save us much confu- 
sion of thought, and help us the better to under- 
stand certain current errors relating to it. 

1. That for which men deserve eternal death. 
In general terms it may be said that sin, or all 
responsible wrong-doing, merits eternal death. 
Or, to put the thought in other words, all trans- 
gression of the divine law, which is sin, deserves 
the affixed and necessary penalty of that law. 
In the light of this definition it will be found 
that all who have reached the age of responsible 
action have justly subjected themselves, through 
actual sin, to the wrath of God, and deserve his 
condemnation.* 

This doctrine is the reiterated teaching of the 
Scriptures, and the background of the divine 

* This is not the place to discuss the question of the relation 
of children to the atonement, and we need only say that, not 
being sinners in any true definition of sin, their relation to 
Christ must be wholly peculiar, as is their relation to probation 
and the new birth. 



160 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

mercy and grace in the atonement. It is be- 
cause we have sinned and come short of the 
glory of God, and deserve his just and necessary 
wrath and condemnation, that a merciful and 
gracious atonement was needed and possible. 
Otherwise Christ would not have died. 

It is this fact, moreover, that shows the depth 
of the divine love for us in our redemption. It 
was to save us from a deserved perishing that 
God gave his only begotten Son. 

These facts of Scripture are so well known, 
and so freely admitted, that a fuller statement of 
them is wholly needless ; but, in a few words, 
their bearing upon the modern doctrine of a 
future probation must be considered. 

This doctrine teaches that some men in this 
life, particularly the heathen, have not a sufficient 
probation. This means that they do not have a 
" fair chance !' of eternal life here and now; and, 
if its logical implications are at all to be taken 
into the account, that all men do not deserve 
eternal death for the sins of this present time. 
In order to be worthy of death they must know 
and reject the revelation of God in the life and 
death of his Son — they must know and reject the 
historic Christ. Some carry their principle so 
far as to say that many in even nominally 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 161 

Christian lands have not had sufficient oppor- 
tunity of life to merit eternal punishment. 

Our objections to this doctrine are involved in 
our statement above of the ground of future 
eternal guilt, and may be explicitly given as 
follows: (i) The doctrine is contrary to the fact 
that all men deserve death, whether they be 
Christian or heathen. 4i For we before laid to 
the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they 
are all under sin ' (Rom. iii, 9). " For all have 
sinned, and fall short of the glory of God ' 
(Rom. iii, 23). On this fact of universal sinful- 
ness and condemnation is built by Paul the fact 
of universal grace and atonement. If already 
sinful and condemned, men need no future pro- 
bation through which to merit eternal death. 
They now deserve it. (2) The doctrine further 
contradicts the Scriptures by making the knowl- 
edge of Christ necessary for condemnation, 
whereas Christ came not to condemn the world, 
but to save it (John iii, 17). He found the 
world already guilty and condemned, and came 
to save it from its sin. 

If the doctrine of a future probation is to be 
maintained, therefore, it must find ground else- 
where than in the demands of the divine justice. 

According to this, as said, all deserve death. If 
11 



162 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

the doctrine is to be maintained, it must find 
support in a revelation of mercy according to 
divine grace. Our present continued probation 
is such ; and if there is a future probation it 
must be one of grace also. This is the position 
that some advocates of the doctrine seem 
chiefly to occupy. 

That a gracious second * probation is not ex- 
plicity revealed in the Scriptures the advocates 
of the doctrine freely admit. They claim for it 
simply the ground of a legitimate inference from 
certain Scripture facts and teachings. These 
facts and inferences may be briefly considered, 
and then followed by a presentation of positive 
facts against the doctrine. 

(i) Argument from the " absoluteness ' or 
universality of the Christian religion. It is 
claimed that unless Christ be made known to all 
men somewhere before probation closes, the 
universality of his atoning sacrifice is limited ; 



* Advocates of this doctrine dislike to be charged with teach- 
ing a "second" probation, and assert that they advocate only a 
sufficient probation ; if not here, then hereafter. That they are 
justly charged with teaching a *' second " probation is manifest 
from the fact above shown (from the fact of the condemnation 
of all), that all have a sufficient probation here. Universal con- 
demnation involves universal probation, sufficient and full. If 
men are to have a futu?'e probation, therefore, it will be a 
" second : ' probation. The one terms involves the other. 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 163 

and as the heathen die without having known 
Christ, it is inferred that without a future proba- 
tion they do not share the universal grace of the 
incarnation. This is the substance of a doctrine 
upon which volumes have been written. 

Our response to this teaching is: I.) That 
the assumption is true only on the ground of a 
moral influence doctrine of the atonement. We 
readily grant that if the influence of Christ's life 
and teaching is essential to salvation, then a 
knowledge of the historic Christ must be given 
to all men in probation, otherwise the atone- 
ment is not universal in its provision for the 
world's sin. But we do not admit the moral in- 
fluence of the atonement as in any sense a 
cardinal or essential fact. We do not deny the 
fact of a moral influence in the atonement, but 
simply that it is an essential part thereof, or that 
it is a constituent element of atonement at all. 
2.) That it contradicts the fact that some have 
been saved without the knowledge of Christ. 
No satisfactory account of the salvation of the 
Old Testament saints has ever been given con- 
sistently with the assumption that a knowledge 
of the historic Christ is essential to a proper pro- 
bation. Abraham's faith, which was counted to 
him for righteousness (Rom. iv, 3 ; Gen. xv, 6), 



164 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

was not a faith in the historic Christ, nor directly 
in Christ at all. So, also, of the other Old Testa- 
ment characters.* 

The absoluteness or universality of Christianity 
consists in the universal provision in the atone- 
ment for the forgiveness of the sins of the whole 
world, with the final complete regeneration and 
sanctification of all who through faith (in Christ 
for those who know him, and for those who do 

* It is now admitted that salvation is possible without a 
knowledge of Christ, but not final condemnation. ** It has not 
been our desire to show that no one could be saved, in the 
popular acceptation of the term, without the knowledge of 
God's redemptive love in Christ, but rather that those who ap- 
parently would not otherwise be saved, among whom we placed 
not the few but the many, might have the advantage of this 
knowledge before passing under judgment " (Andover Review 
for April, 1890, p. 441). This is extremely inconsistent. To 
say that a knowledge of Christ is essential to a proper probation, 
and then to admit that some can be saved without this knowl- 
edge, is to assert that the final destiny of some can be decided 
without an adequate probation — a contradiction of the funda- 
mental thesis of these writers ; for they declare the necessity of a 
full and proper probation for even children and imbeciles. They 
first declare that a knowledge of Christ in probation is necessary 
for every one, and, after building upon this assumption the 
doctrine of a future probation for the heathen and certain other 
classes, they then, having gained all they desire from their 
doctrine thus established, through the exigency of certain clear 
cases of exception, overthrow that which they before established. 
They thus land in a denial of their own peculiar assumption, 
and help to re-establish and confirm the orthodox position that a 
knowledge of Christ is no essential element of a full and proper 
probation. 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 165 

not, according to their opportunity and knowl- 
edge) seek to obey the dictates of the universal 
Spirit and the revelation given to them, whether 
in the Scriptures or in nature."* 

(2) A gracious future probation is also ar- 
gued on the ground of Christ's universal judge- 
ship Because Christ is to judge all men it is 
asserted that all men must know him ; that 
Christ will not pronounce the doom of any soul 
who has not first known and rejected him. 
Thus the Andover reviewers say : 

" It is clear that Christ is to be the judge. 
Christ is to be on the judgment-seat. . . . 
Now this means more than that in addition to 
his offices of Redeemer and Master Christ is also 
appointed Judge. It means that all men are to 
be judged under the Gospel ; to be judged by 
their relation to Christ. . . . They are to come 
before his judgment-seat, not as those who are 
dragged there forcibly to meet a judge of whose 
person, character, and even existence they know 
nothing, but as those who are brought there as 
the necessary result of the knowledge of God 
which has been given them through him before 

* For a fuller statement of this doctrine the reader is asked to 
consult the article before referred to in the Methodist Review of 
January, 1889. 



163 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

whom they stand to be judged. When we read 
that Christ is to be the judge, we are to under- 
stand that the judgment will be a Christian 
judgment. . ." {Progressive Orthodoxy, p. 72). 

In reply we would say: 1.) We most gladly 
recognize the gracious truth declared and illus- 
trated in the fact that our Judge is our Redeemer. 
The most fundamental and characteristic fact in 
our redemption is exhibited in this twofold re- 
lationship of Christ to us. We are not to be 
judged by God out of Christ, or according to 
justice aside from mercy, but by God in Christ, 
or by justice according to a gracious redemption. 
By the first we are all condemned ; by the 
second we may all be saved. But 2.) We see 
nothing in the mere fact of Christ's judgeship of 
all men to warrant the inference drawn from it 
aside from the explicit teaching of the Script- 
ures. Christ will judge all men in mercy and 
according to the provisions of his atoning sac- 
rifice ; but to say that he will not judge any but 
those who have known him is an assumption for 
which the Scriptures furnish no word of author- 
ity. 3.) The facts of the Scriptures are against 
it. We make the assertion here, and postpone 
its proof to another place, further on. 

(3) Argument from the incarnation. It is 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 167 

argued that Christ, in taking upon him our nat- 
ure and becoming God-man, practically demon- 
strated the need of a knowledge of himself for 
the salvation of men ; and that for the fulfill- 
ment of the purpose of the incarnation all men 
must in probation be brought into a relation of 
knowledge to God thus manifested in the flesh. 
This argument is the burden of the second 
chapter in Progressive Orthodoxy, although there 
not very explicity stated as such. It is one 
phase of the general argument from the absolute- 
ness or universality of the Christian religion 
(see chap, ix, p. 256), but looked at from its 
own special stand-point. 

In this statement of the argument we have 
placed upon it the best construction that we 
believe to be possible. Our objections are: 1.) 
While the incarnation was an essential element 
of the work of Christ in redemption (Phil, ii, 
6-8; Heb. ii, 16-18; iv, 15, 16), and fulfills an 
important place in the evangelization of the 
world, that a knowledge of it is essential to sal- 
vation is what remains to be proved. The proof 
has not yet been given. But, on the other hand, 
2.) The fact above urged in another connection, 
but which equally applies here, that some have 
been saved without this relationship of knowl- 



168 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

edge to the incarnate Christ, is positive proof 
against it. 

(4) Another argument is based upon the as- 
sumption that the Holy Spirit can find sufficient 
material alone in the life, death, and teaching of 
our Lord for his efficacious and proper work in 
saving the lost. It is said in proof that the 
heathen — the great mass of them— are very- 
corrupt, and in this condition cannot be saved. 
The alternate, these writers assert, is either that 
Christ must be made known to the heathen 
somewhere in probation, or the vast majority of 
them be forever lost. 

In objection, besides urging the ever-recurring 
" exceptional cases ' ! of regeneration without the 
knowledge of Christ, especially in the Old Tes- 
tament, with which the Andover professors find 
much difficulty at every point, we may say that 
their cardinal mistake lies in the assumption 
that regeneration and morality must always coin- 
cide, or that they are inseparable in their lower, 
as well as higher, stages of development. That 
they are not may be proved, not only from the 
imperfect cases of morality in the Old Testament 
(for example, the cases of Abraham and Jacob), 
but from the same imperfection in many Chris- 
tians of New Testament times, and even in ourl 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 169 

selves. A thorough study of the subject will re- 
veal that, while regeneration depends upon the 
inner working of the Holy Spirit, morality de- 
pends largely upon knowledge ; and that moral- 
ity may exist without corresponding regenera- 
tion, and regeneration also in many cases with- 
out its corresponding and proper morality. Our 
inference from these facts is that many of the 
devout, though superstitious and even immoral, 
heathen may be, and most likely are, regenerate, 
and only need more perfect knowledge for their 
moral development and sanctification. For a 
further statement of this point we must refer 
the reader once more to our article in the 
Methodist Revietv for January, 1889. 

(5) It is argued, further, that the condemning 
sin under the Gospel is unbelief, and that the 
heathen cannot be guilty of this sin without a 
knowledge of Christ. The inference is easy. 

To this it may be said : 1.) That faith in Christ 
is the only way of salvation according to the 
Scriptures (Rom. iii, 22, 25, 26, 30; v, 1; xi, 20,. 
etc.), and yet Cornelius was accepted of God be- 
fore he had heard of Christ (Acts x, 34, 35). 
2.) The passages that speak of unbelief in Christ 
as the condemning sin evidently refer to cases 
where Christ is known. The preaching of the 



1T0 FUTURE RETRIBUTION'. 

Gospel precedes the condemning unbelief of the 
Gospel (Mark xvi, 15, 16). 

(6) A future probation is also inferred from so 
incidental a fact as the raising to life of the dead 
(Mark v, 42; Luke vii, 11-17; John xi), and 
from Paul's supposed prayer for Onesiphorus, 
after the latter's decease (2 Tim. i, 16-18 ; 
iv, 19). 

As to the first case, Dorner says : " A proof 
that, according to the New Testament, the time 
of grace does not expire with death by a uni- 
versal law, is found in Christ's raisings of the 
dead ; for example, the youth at Nain received 
through resurrection from the dead a prolonga- 
tion of the time of grace, through which Christ's 
love first became known to him ' {System of 
Christian Doctrine, vol. iv, p. 409). 

It may be said, however, that there is no rea- 
son for supposing that this young man was not 
saved at death (Lazarus and the daughter of 
Jairus certainly were), and if so his return to 
earth would not make any change in the out- 
come of his life. His probation, therefore, was 
practically and really closed at his first decease. 
Besides, the Andover Future Probationists confess 
that the argument based upon these facts is ex- 
tremely uncertain. They say : " Inferences from 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 171 

the resurrection of Lazarus and of the widow *s 
son, and from their subsequent opportunities, 
have always appeared to us very shadowy ' 
{Progressive Orthodoxy, p. 101). 

As to the case of Onesiphorus, i.) it is not be- 
yond doubt that he was dead ; 2.) the so called 
prayer of Paul in his behalf seems no more than 
an expression of good-will toward him. It cer- 
tainly was not a formal and direct prayer. But 
3.) if we must suppose he was dead, and if we 
regard Paul's parenthetical expression, " The 
Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord 
in that day," a true prayer, such as would author- 
ize us also to pray for the dead, it must be re- 
membered that Onesiphorus was a Christian, and 
that no further inference could be drawn from 
the fact than that prayers might be offered for 
the righteous dead. This is the doctrine of the 
Church of Rome. 

(7) Other passages which are said to furnish 
ground for this doctrine are as follows : " Then 
began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of 
his mighty works were done, because they re- 
pented not. Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! woe 
unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works 
had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were 
done in you, they would have repented long ago 



172 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

in sackcloth and ashes. Howbeit I say unto 
you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and 
Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. And 
thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto 
heaven ? thou shalt go down unto Hades: for if 
the mighty works had been done in Sodom which 
were done in thee, it would have remained 
until this day. Howbeit I say unto you, that it 
shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom 
in the day of judgment, than for thee " (Matt, xi, 
20-24) ; " And whosoever shall speak a word 
against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him ; 
but whosoever shall speak against the Holy 
Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in 
this world, nor in that which is to come " (Matt, 
xii, 32) ; " Because Christ also suffered for sins 
once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he 
might bring us to God ; being put to death in 
the flesh, but quickened in the spirit ; in which 
also he went and preached unto the spirits in 
prison, which aforetime were disobedient, when 
the long-suffering of God waited in the days of 
Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein 
few, that is, eight souls, were saved through 
water" (1 Pet. iii, 18-20); " For unto this end 
was the gospel preached even to the dead, that 
they might be judged according to men in the 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 173 

flesh, but live according to God in the spirit " (i 
Pet. iv, 6*).f 

As to the first passage, it is said that if the 
ancient cities there referred to, " had they seen 
what the Jews saw, would have repented in sack- 
cloth and ashes, they would have been saved, 
which therefore implies that if the time of grace 
expired for them with death they would be 
damned for not seeing and knowing Christ, 
which was not their fault ' (Dorner, System of 
Christian Doctrine, vol. iv, p. 410). As to the 
second passage, it is said: "When, further, 
Christ says of a sin, that it is forgiven neither in 
this nor in the next life, whereas other sins are 
forgiven in this" world without limitation, this 
contains a testimony that other sins, save the sin 
against the Holy Ghost, may be forgiven in the 
next world' {ibid,). The two passages in First 
Peter are the strongholds of this doctrine, and 

* Compare Acts ii, 27, 31. Dorner thinks that Eph. ; v, 8-10, 
has no reference to Christ's Hadean descent (System of 
Christian. Doctrine, vol. iv, p. 128). 

f We omit reference here to such passages as I Tim. ii, 4-6 ; 
Luke xix, 10 ; 1 John ii, 2, given by Dorner in favor of this 
doctrine, for the manifest reason that " to quote such passages 
to prove the broader view seems like trifling with the divine 
testimony." They are not used by the Andover professors. 
Besides, we have already sufficiently considered them in con- 
nection with the doctrine of Universalism in the second chapter. 



174 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

it is claimed that in them is furnished a compar- 
atively direct testimony concerning it. 

Without attempting to enter into a full discus- 
sion of these much disputed passages of Script- 
ure, it will be sufficient to say that one all 
conclusive fact against the doctrine of a future 
probation being inferred from them is that what- 
ever the passages may signify as to a possible 
hope for some after this life, they cannot signify 
a future probation ; for the representation in each 
case is entirely on the ground of things done in 
this life. It will be more tolerable for Tyre and 
Sidon and Sodom in the judgment than for 
Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum ; but in all 
cases reference is undoubtedly intended to the 
earthly sins of these cities. So, also, if we are 
to suppose that Matt, xii, 32, signifies a possible 
forgiveness in the other life for all sins but the 
sin against the Holy Ghost, still it is the forgive- 
ness of sins committed in this life. No intima- 
tion is given of the forgiveness of sins committed 
after death. * Likewise, in the case of the ante- 



* It is doubtful, however, whether this passage, as suggested 
in another place, signifies more than what has been called an 
11 emphasized negative." Dr. Love also suggests the following: 
" Some Jews, perhaps not many, previous to and at the time of 
Christ, believed that some of their people, suddenly cut off by 
death, though righteous, did not have passed upon them the full 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 175 

diluvians, reference is made only to their earthly 
" disobedience " (i Pet. iii, 20). 

Future Probationists unwittingly overlook the 
fact that their doctrine involves the idea that in 
the other life sins may be both committed and 
forgiven. This is implicit in the very idea of fut- 
ure probation. Before the passages above given, 
therefore, can be urged as favoring this doctrine, 
they must be shown to have reference to sins 
committed in that life, and not merely to the 
oossible forgiveness there of sins committed 
here. That they have no such reference we have 
seen. 

In concluding this brief survey of the doctrine 
of a future probation, we would urge against it, 
positively, that not only do the Scriptures repre- 
sent the outcome in the other life as wholly 

act of forgiveness until they reached the other world. Some of 
them believed in prayer for such departed ones, as will hereafter 
be shown. On similar grounds, baptism for the dead was 
practiced by a few among the early nominal Christians, though 
generally discountenanced. A living Christian was baptized for 
an unbaptized dead Christian (1 Cor. xv, 29). By a few it was 
thought that without receiving such baptism the departed un- 
baptized could not be received into bliss. Knowing this belief 
among some of his hearers concerning the forgiveness of the 
dead who had suddenly been cut off, Jesus, without at all lend- 
ing his sanction to that view, may have added the phrase, ' nor 
in that which is to come,' thus cutting off a groundless hope " 
{Future Probation Examined, p. 259). 



176 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

dependent upon this life, without any intimation 
that acts there will be taken into the account in 
deciding moral and spiritual destiny (Matt, x, 
32, 33; Rom. ii, 6-10; 2 Cor. v, 10; Gal. vi, 7, 8; 
Col. iii, 24, 25 ; Rev. xxii, 12, etc.), but in the repre- 
sentations of the judgment all punishment is for 
sins in this life (Matt, xxv, 41-46; Rev. xx, 12-15). 
It must be remembered that the doctrine of a 
future probation necessarily assumes that some 
sins for which punishment will be awarded in 
the judgment will have been committed in the 
intermediate state, unless it be affirmed that all 
will in that state decide for Christ ; and even 
then it would have to be said that the rewards 
of the righteous are also, according to these rep- 
resentations, for deeds in this life (Matt, xxv, 
34-40, etc.). Now, with punishment and reward 
in the judgment solely for acts of this life, ac- 
cording to New Testament representations of the 
judgment, how maintain an after-death probation 
in which men may so act as to be saved or finally 
lost for the deeds of that state ? On the ground 
of these facts the doctrine of an after-death pro- 
bation will have to be surrendered, whatever 
other gracious truth the passages, or some of 
them, urged in its favor may teach us. (See 
chapter v.) 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 177 

2. That for which eternal death will be in- 
flicted under the Gospel. We now come to that 
part of our present topic which most concerns us. 
We have seen that for w r hich men w r ill not be 
punished forever, and that for which eternal 
death is merited according to the Scriptures, and 
we now inquire as to that for which this deserved 
death will be inflicted under the Gospel, or under 
an economy of mercy and grace. 

Our answer to this inquiry is implicit in what 

has already been said. We have seen that all 

deserve death for responsible sin, or for a willful 

violation of the divine commandments, and have 

intimated that this was the reason and ground 

of the divine mercy and forgiveness in Christ. 

We are now prepared to appreciate the teaching 

of the Scriptures when they assert that there is no 

other way of salvation than that offered in Christ. 

" And in none other is their salvation : for neither 

is there any other name under heaven, that is 

given among men, wherein we must be saved ' 

(Acts iv, 12). From all this the inference is 

easy that eternal death will be inflicted only in 

the case of him who rejects the divine way of 

forgiveness. For him who " hath trodden under 

foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood 

of the covenant ... an unholy thing, and hath 
12 



178 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

done despite unto the Spirit of grace" " there 
remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a cer- 
tain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierce- 
ness of fire which shall devour the adversaries ■ 
(Heb. x, 26-31). There is no atonement for the 
rejection of Christ, and it is this act, therefore, 
that leaves the soul exposed to all the deserved 
wrath of a violated divine law, and which is con- 
sequently, under the Gospel, that which damns 
forever. We deserved death before Christ came. 
From this he came to deliver us. If we refuse 
the deliverance offered in him, we remain lost 
beyond the power of divine grace to save. Our 
hell is made by rejecting the only way of life, and 
is made forever. 

That this is the teaching of the Scriptures none 
who have accepted our doctrine thus far will be 
disposed to question. Other illustrative pas- 
sages in addition to those given above are as fol- 
lows : " And she shall bring forth a son ; and 
thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for it is he that 
shall save his people from their sins' (Matt, i, 
21) ; " To him bear all the prophets witness, that 
through his name every one that believeth on 
him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts x, 43) ; 
" For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory 
of God ; being justified freely by his grace through 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION, 179 

the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom 
God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, 
by his blood, to show his righteousness, because 
of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, 
in the forbearance of God ; for the showing, I 
say, of his righteousness at this present season : 
that he might himself be just, and the justifier 
of him that hath faith in Jesus " (Rom. iii, 23-26) ; 
" But God commendeth his love toward us, in 
that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for 
us. Much more then, being now justified by his 
blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God 
through him ' ' (Rom. v, 8, 9) ; " He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that dis- 
believeth shall be condemned' (Mark xvi, 16); 
" I am come a light into the world, that whoso- 
ever believeth on me may not abide in the dark- 
ness. . . . He that rejecteth me, and receiveth 
not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him : the 
word that I spake, the same shall judge him in 
the last day " (John xii, 46, 48) ; " Verily, verily, 
I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal 
life (John vi, 47) ; "He that eateth my flesh 
and drinketh my blood hath eternal life " (John 
vi, 54), etc.* 

* It will be noted that " rejecting " Christ (John xii, 48) is the 
same as unbelief {ibid., verse 46). We reject Christ through 



180 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

While both by the logic of our general premises 
concerning sin and redemption, and by the plain 
and specific teaching of the sacred Scriptures, 
we are led to this conclusion — that the rejection 
of Christ is the only damning sin under the Gos- 
pel — we are yet called upon to notice, according 
to the same Scriptures, the different possible 
forms of this all important sin. 

(i) The direct sin of rejecting Christ. This is 
possible only where Christ is known, and it as- 
sumes the form of actual or practical unbelief. 
The Scriptures always assume that this unbelief 
is occasioned by a willful rejection of the light 
given. " If any man willeth to do his will, he 
shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, 
or whether I speak from myself ! (John vii, 17). 
u I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in 
your sins : for except ye believe that I am he, ye 
shall die in your sins ' (John viii, 24). " He 
that believeth on him is not judged : he that be- 
lieveth not hath been judged already, because 
he hath not believed on the name of the only 

unbelief. Also, "receiving" Christ and "believing on him" 
and " eating and drinking his flesh and blood ". are but different 
New Testament ways of saying the same thing. We do not 
eat Christ in the eucharist, as the Romanists say, but by faith 
we receive him spiritually. The forty-seventh and fifty-fourth 
verses of John vi express the same truth. 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 181 

begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, 
that light is come into the world, and men loved 
the darkness rather than the light; for their 
works were evil (John iii, 18, 19). The belief 
in Christ that saves, on the other hand, involves 
a belief in him as divine (1 John v, 9, 10, et pas- 
sim). Unitarianism has a fearful sin to answer 
for according to the New Testament. 

This rejection of Christ through unbelief that 
damns may be either his rejection as he is pre- 
sented to men (Mark xvi, 16), or a final falling 
away from a faith that once saved (Heb. vi, 4-8 ; 
x, 26-31*). In both cases the sin may, in the 
outcome, amount to the sin against the Holy 
Ghost. 

(2) The sin against the Holy Ghost. This sin 
is presented in the New Testament as a separate 
sin from the mere matter of unbelief (Matt, xii, 

* These passages of Scripture must not be thought, however, 
to teach that the simple act of falling away from Christ is un- 
pardonable, or that once to have known Christ and to have re- 
jected him admits of no return, but must be read in the light 
of the circumstances of the case. The writer is speaking to the 
Jews who had accepted Christ and who were in danger of apos- 
tasy. He easily foresaw that if they should give up their faith 
in our Lord it would be impossible to renew them unto repent- 
ance. The circumstances of the case would make their sin pe- 
culiarly grievous, and would involve a total denial of Jesus as 
Lord (a thing that is not done in every case of backsliding), ami 
would consequently foreclose all return to salvation and life. 



182 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

22-32; Mark iii, 22-30; Luke xii, 10; I John v, 
16), and as such demands separate consideration. 
According to the account in Matthew and 
Mark, Christ had just healed a man that was 
possessed with a devil, and had restored his sight 
and speech. The people were amazed at this 
wonderful demonstration of supernatural power, 
and exclaimed in acknowledging faith : " Is not 
this the son of David ? " — the expected Messiah. 
But when the Jewish leaders — the Pharisees and 
scribes — heard of the event, and how the people 
were being led by it to acknowledge Jesus as the 
Christ, in order to rebut this divine testimony to 
Jesus and call the people back from their ac- 
knowledgment of him, they declared that Jesus 
in casting out devils — a fact they did not deny — 
did so by the power of Satan. It was equivalent 
to saying that Christ was in league with Satan, 
and was in reality attributing to the devil the 
work of the Holy Ghost. The sin must have 
been a deliberate one on the part of these Jewish 
leaders, and must have been committed in the 
clear conviction that their attribution of the 
work of the Spirit to the evil one was a lie 
against the Holy Ghost. Their motive was to 
retain the confidence of the people in themselves 
and to withhold them from reposing it in Christ ; 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 183 

or, rather, they would dissuade the people from 
believing in Christ in order that they might re- 
tain their thievish and selfish hold upon them 
(John x, 8, 10, 12, 13). This deliberate sin Jesus 
said was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and 
that for it there was no forgiveness. So willful a 
rejection of the light given them closed the door 
of pardon upon these men.* 

There is a strong theological tendency which 
seeks to resolve the damning sin of the New Tes- 
tament into this sin against the Holy Ghost. 
There can be no doubt, as above said, that the 
final outcome of rejecting Christ amounts to this 
sin, but we think it truer to the New Testament 
teaching to represent the sin that damns as defin- 
itive unbelief, and to represent the sin against 
the Holy Ghost, as the Scriptures do, as one form 
or manifestation, perhaps the culminating form, 
of this sin. Certain it is, as above seen, that 
the sin that damns is unbelief, or the final re- 
jection of Christ. 



* We do not see how this conclusion can be avoided when it is 
remembered that Mark says that Jesus spoke of this sin "be- 
cause" the Jews said, 44 He hath an unclean spirit" (iii, 30). 
Besides, the impression we get from the whole narrative is not 
that Jesus was warning these men of a sin they were in danger 
of committing (Dorner and others), but that he was speaking of 
a sin they had already committed. 



184 FUTURE RE7RIBUTI0N. 

But however we may regard these two sins as 
related to each other, there can be no doubt that 
either, or both, presupposes a persistent course 
in sinful development. No man by a misstep 
can fall into the guilt that damns forever under 
the Gospel. It must in every case be a deliberate 
act, or, better still, the culmination of many such 
acts. In this we entirely coincide with Miiller 
when he says : " Unthinking recklessness, as such, 
is perfectly secure from the sin against the Holy 
Ghost" {Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. ii, p. 421), 
and as well, we may add, against definitive un- 
belief; positing, however, that this sin persisted 
in, as well as every other sin, will no doubt ulti- 
mately lead to the sin of final unbelief; for sin, 
however much it is begun and continued in un- 
thinking recklessness, or in any other spirit, be- 
comes more and more, as time goes on and it con- 
tinues, a matter of deliberate choice, with its corre- 
sponding rejection of the good. Sin is unsafe in 
any case ; purposely chosen and persisted in until 
the close of life, it becomes final in the rejection of 
Christ, and forever damns. The best and only safe 
time to cease sinning and turn to the Lord is now. 

(3) The sin for which condemnation is pro- 
nounced in the judgment according to Matt, xxv, 
41-46. The sin for which final condemnation is 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 135 

pronounced according to the representation in 
this passage is unmercifulncss, as that for which 
the reward of the righteous is pronounced in the 
preceding verses is mercifulness, or acts of be- 
nevolence. " Depart from me. ye cursed, into 
the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil 
and his angels: for I was an hungered, and ye 
gave me no meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me 
no drink : I was a stranger, and ye took me not 
in ; naked, and ye clothed me not ; sick, and in 
prison, and ye visited me not." 

At first sight this seems wholly peculiar, and 
not what might have been expected from what has 
been above said. On the other hand, however, ex- 
amination will reveal, not only that it is in perfect 
keeping with what has been said, but that it is 
a demonstration and illustration of it. The faith 
that saves is not a fruitless faith (Jas. ii, 14-26); 
nor is the unbelief that damns. Both have their 
corresponding fruits, and it is these fruits, or some 
of them, that are represented by our Lord as that 
for which condemnation or approval is respect- 
ively pronounced in the last day.* This is in 

* It is worthy of note that one of the fruits of a " dead " faith, 
which is the same as unbelief, is, according to James, the very 
sin for which condemnation is pronounced in the judgment as 
given in Matthew. "But ye have dishonored the poor man " 
(chap, ii, 6. See the whole chapter). 



186 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

keeping, moreover, with the representations of 
the judgment in other places, as, for example, in 
the parables of the Ten Virgins and the Talents 
in the foregoing part of this same chapter, and in 
the representations of the judgment in the Book 
of Revelation. In this latter place it is said that 
" the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, 
and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, 
and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be in 
the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone ; 
which is the second death ' (chap, xxi, 8). These, 
also, are some of the fruits of unbelief, and as 
such damn forever. Christ came to deliver us 
both from condemnation already merited, and 
also from the power of sin (Rom. vi, 1-8, etc.). 
Faith is the condition of deliverance from both. 
Unbelief leaves the soul subject to original con- 
demnation, and a prey to the forces and powers 
of evil, and in. the outcome is death. Conse- 
quently, by metonomy of the effect for the cause, 
the fruits of final unbelief are represented as 
furnishing the ground of final condemnation. 
We are damned for unbelief, but for unbelief 
that perpetuates and begets the sins that damn. 
With this understanding of the passage in 
question, it is immaterial to us in this discussion 
whether it is taken to represent the general 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 187 

judgment of Christians and heathen alike, or 
simply that of the latter class of persons (Stier 
and others). The heathen and the nominally 
Christian are both alike justified by faith (Rom. 
iii, 30), and both alike, according to a necessary 
inference, condemned by unbelief; but both ac- 
cording to their opportunities and knowledge : 
the nominal Christian for faith or unbelief in 
Christ ; the heathen for the same according to 
the light of nature and the manifestation of the 
Holy Spirit to him. In both cases, likewise, 
will there be the corresponding fruits of faith or 
unbelief, with their consequent approval or con- 
demnation ; but in this also for the heathen ac- 
cording to his light and opportunities (Luke xii, 

48). 

Implicit in these last statements is the much 
debated ground of final condemnation for those 
who in probation do not know the historic 
Christ. As some are received who do not be- 
lieve in the historic Christ, so some will no doubt 
be condemned who do not have the opportunity 
of rejecting the historic Christ, but who in real- 
ity reject Christ ; we do not object to the phrase 
" essential Christ," for we think it a convenient 
phrase to express the truth in the matter. If 
from deliberate and persistent choice the heathen 



188 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

reject the light they have, it is to be inferred 
that they would also reject greater light if given 
to them. If they will not hear the voice of God 
in the teaching of nature and by the Holy Spirit, 
neither would they believe though Christ were 
preached to them. (See Luke xvi, 31.) For " he 
that is faithful in a very little " — by application, 
the heathen who strives to live up to the meas- 
ure of light possessed — " is faithful also in much/ 
Such a heathen would be faithful also in the 
higher opportunities of the Gospel. " And he 
that is unrighteous in a very little " — by applica- 
tion, the dim light and opportunities of those 
who know not Christ — " is unrighteous also in 
much :" by equal application, such a person 
would be unrighteous also in the fuller light of 
the revelation of God in his Son (Luke xvi, 10). 
This we think is the only consistent and 
scriptural teaching upon the subject. The 
heathen need no future probation in order to 
have a fair chance of eternal life in Christ ; and it 
is equally certain that they will not be damned 
forever for not having known the historic Christ. 
The cause of missions must find some other 
ground of its inspiration than in the unqualified 
damnation of the heathen for not having been 
permitted to hear the Gospel — a thing for which 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 189 

they can in no wise be responsible, and which 
contradicts the universal grace and free oppor- 
tunity of redemption for every man for eternal 
life. 

To recapitulate, the conclusions of this chapter 
are : (i) That men in general will not be damned 
forever for that over which they have had no con- 
trol, or for things for which they are not respon- 
sible. Ability and responsibility are equal. They 
will not, therefore, be condemned for the sin of 
Adam, nor for any arbitrary divine reprobation 
" for the glory of sovereign justice,' nor for not 
having received baptism or heard the Gospel. 
Besides these matters for which persons are not 
responsible, and for which many have been as- 
signed to an endless hell by an irrational and un- 
scriptural theology, to be named as not necessary 
conditions of salvation are, subscription to a hu- 
man creed, and membership in a, or the, visible 
Christian Church. (2) On the other hand, that 
for which all men deserve eternal death is re- 
sponsible sin. By this standard all are guilty 
and deserve death ; for " all have sinned and fall 
short of the glory of God." On the ground of 
this universal condemnation the doctrine of a 
future probation is seen to have no claim upon 
divine justice, and this fact lays upon the doc- 



190 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

trine the demand of proving that it is graciously 
revealed and promised — a thing which it fails to 
do, and which is rebutted by positive Scripture 
facts against it. But from this universal con- 
demnation Christ came to deliver us. Conse- 
quently, (3) That for which men are damned 
under the Gospel is definitive unbelief, or a final 
rejection of the only way of escape from their 
deserved condemnation. This sin of definitive 
unbelief has different forms and manifestations. 
Its common representation in the Scriptures is 
simple and final unbelief; but, as such, it no 
doubt amounts to the sin against the Holy Ghost. 
Among certain Pharisees and scribes in Christ's 
day it assumed the distinctive form of the special 
sin against the Holy Ghost ; and while, as above 
said, all sin may be ultimately resolved into this 
one, yet in the New Testament it is represented 
as a special sin, and, as such, is to be distin- 
guished from the more common sin of unbelief. 
The final sin of unbelief, moreover, may be 
judged, and will in the last day be judged, ac- 
cording to Matt, xxv, 41-46 and the Book of 
Revelation and elsewhere, by its fruits; and the 
sentence of the Judge will then be pronounced 
on the basis of these fruits. Unbelief damns 
under the Gospel, but unbelief will be judged 



GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 191 

according to its fruits of sin, as also faith, on the 
other hand, will be judged by its fruits. 

These facts reveal to us the relation of the 
heathen to the Gospel, and to their final con- 
demnation. They will not be condemned for 
what they have not, and cannot have, but alone 
for persistently and finally refusing the light 
given them in nature and the universal opera- 
tions of the Holy Spirit. The cause of missions 
cannot expect to continue its appeals to the de- 
votion and liberality of the Church on the ground 
of the indiscriminate damnation of the heathen 
simply for not having heard of Christ. Its ap- 
peal will hereafter be more rational, and true to 
the facts of Scripture. 



" And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that de- 
fileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a 
lie : but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." — 
Rev. xxi, 27. 



CHAPTER V. 

The Number of the Lost. 

THE subject of the present chapter is one of 
the greatest importance. A false doctrine 
here would involve the gravest consequences; 
and it therefore becomes us to examine very 
closely as to the true teaching of the Scriptures 
concerning it. 

In the writings of Universalists, and some 
others, it is quite generally assumed that the 
orthodox teaching includes the great mass of 
mankind among the damned. A few illustrative 
quotations will be in place. " I was, of course, 
immediately faced by the question, l How can 
life be regarded as worth living by the majority 
of mankind if, as is taught by the current relig- 
ious teaching, they are doomed to everlasting 
damnation?' (Farrar, Eternal Hope, preface, 
p. xlvii. Dr. Pusey has culled thirteen passages 
from Dr. Farrar's little book in which similar 
expressions are used.) " Many are perplexed, 
hesitating to receive as perfect and divine a rev- 
elation which, they are told, in the name of God 
13 



194 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

consigns a large proportion of those who in some 
sense at least are his offspring to everlasting 
misery' (Jukes, Restitution of All Things, pref- 
ace, p. v). " Although the grounds on which 
these doctrines are alleged to rest differ widely 
from one another, the general conclusion which 
is deduced from them is for all practical pur- 
poses the same, namely, that Christianity affirms 
that the overwhelming majority of that innu- 
merable multitude of men who have existed in 
the past and who exist in the present will, after 
this life is ended, pass into a state of endless 
existence in never-ending misery' (Row, Future 
Retribution, p. 2). " But when we consider the 
array of figures which would be required to rep- 
resent the numbers of the human race who have 
existed in the past — according to the best com- 
putations more than twelve hundred millions 
exist in the present — and that those who, ac- 
cording to the above theories, will thus perish 
everlastingly will constitute an overwhelming 
majority of them, the thought is so awful that 
it may well set men thinking whether such 
theories can possibly be true ' {ibid., p. 16, et 
passim). 

But this assumption is not true. The Chris- 
tian Church does not teach that the majority of 



NUMBER OF THE LOST. 195 

men will be lost. Over against the assumption 
we place the teaching of several of the most 
eminent advocates of the orthodox view. " A 
single remark remains to be made respecting the 
extent and scope of hell. It is only a spot in 
the universe of God. Compared with heaven 
hell is narrow and limited. The kingdom of 
Satan is insignificant in contrast with the king- 
dom of Christ. In the immense range of God's 
dominion good is the rule and evil is the excep- 
tion. Sin is a speck upon the infinite azure 
of eternity ; a spot on the sun. Hell is only 
a corner of the universe ' (Shedd, Dogmatic 
Theology, vol. ii, p. 745). " We have reason to 
believe, as urged in the first volume of this work, 
and as often urged elsewhere, that the number 
of the finally lost in comparison with the whole 
number of the saved will be very inconsiderable. 
Our blessed Lord, when surrounded by the in- 
numerable company of the redeemed, will be 
hailed as the Salvator hominum — the Saviour of 
men — as the Lamb that bore the sins of the 
world ' (Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. iii, 
p. 879). " As a final thought in eschatology, 
reference may be made to the vast preponder- 
ance of good over evil as the fruit of redemption 
and judgment. Not only will order be restored 



196 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

throughout the universe, but the good will far 
outnumber the bad ; the saved will be many 
times more than the lost " (A. Hovey, Biblical 
Eschatology, p. 167). *' In respect, for example, to 
the number of the saved and of the lost, it is by 
no means just to allege with Farrar that, accord- 
ing to the position of orthodoxy, the latter class 
must include the vast majority of mankind ' 
(E. D. Morris, Is There Salvation After Death ? 
p. 235). " The race in its vast majority, the 
race as such, is actually saved [at the consum- 
mation of all things] ; and as to the residue, it 
will be cast out not only from God, but from 
mankind, and not accounted of" (Pope, Com- 
pendium of Christian Theology, vol. iii, p. 428). 
"In the termination of the w r orld's history the 
gospel of the kingdom shall be universally 
triumphant ; that is, the mass of mankind shall 
be Christian believers and children of God, the 
few only remaining obstinate and rebellious ' 
(Miner Raymond, Systematic Theology, vol. ii, p. 
517). According to Shedd, even Calvin and 
Edwards believed the majority of mankind would 
be saved {ut supra, p. 747). 

We now propose to examine the grounds of 
this larger view, and to consider certain passages 
of Scripture which seem to contradict it. 



X UMBER OF THE LOST. ]07 

It must be confessed at the outset, however, 
that the question is a very difficult one, and one 
which does not easily admit of a categorical 
affirmative either one way or the other. One 
manifest reason is that it is a contingent question 
so far as responsible persons are concerned. 
Whether many or few will be saved depends 
wholly upon the willingness or final refusal of 
men to be saved. As to what will be the actual 
outcome, therefore, we cannot confidently know 
except by predictive revelation — a thing that is 
nowhere given. 

It is very certain that no doctrine upon the 
subject can be based upon the comparative num- 
bers in the parables of our Lord. In the para- 
ble of the Virgins five are wise and five foolish, 
but in that of the Talents the proportion of the 
faithful to the unfaithful is as two to one, and in 
the parable of the Wedding-garment (a parable 
within a parable) only one is cast out into the 
outer darkness (Matt, xxii, 11-14). 

The words of our Lord in Matt, vii, 13, 14, 
21-23; Luke xiii, = 23-30, must be given in full: 
44 Enter ye in by the narrow gate : for wide is 
the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to 
destruction, and many be they that enter in 
thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened 



198 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

the way, that leadeth unto life, and few be they 
that find it/ " Not every one that saith unto 
me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom 
of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my 
Father which is heaven. Many will say to me 
in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by 
thy name, and by thy name cast out devils, and 
by thy name do many mighty works ? And then 
will I profess unto them, I never knew you: de- 
part from me, ye that work iniquity/ "And 
one said unto him, Lord, are they few that be 
saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter 
in by the narrow door : for many, I say unto you, 
shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 
When once the master of the house is risen up, 
and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand 
without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, 
open to us ; and he shall answer and say to you, 
I know you not whence ye are ; then shall ye 
begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy pres- 
ence, and thou didst teach in our streets ; and 
he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye 
are ; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 
There shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth, 
when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, 
and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and 
yourselves cast forth without. And they shall 



NUMBER OF THE LOST. 199 

come from the east and west, and from the north 
and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of 
God. And behold, there are last which shall be 
first, and there are first which shall be last/* 

With regard to these passages we offer the fol- 
lowing remarks: (i) " Many ' will be cast out 
and lost. " Many will say to me in that day 
[certainly the last day, or day of judgment], 
Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name/' 
etc. " And then will I profess unto them, I never 
knew you : depart from me [compare Matt, xxv, 
41], ye that work iniquity/' But this reveals 
nothing as to proportion; for "many' maybe 
lost, and more saved. (2) On the other hand, the 
word " few " * is used but once in these passages 
by our Lord, and then in no unmistakable refer- 
ence to the number of the finally saved. In 
Luke, where the questioner uses the word, Christ 
simply signifies that " many ' will be lost, but 
does not say " few ' will be saved. He certainly 
avoids a direct answer, and seems to intend : 
" Without saying any thing as to the number of 
the saved, many will be lost ; therefore, strive ye 

* The phrase, "For many are called, but few chosen," in 
Matt, xx, 16, is omitted in the Revised Version, and the same 
phrase in Matt, xxii, 14, has undoubted reference to the Jews. 
They were all called, but ,€ few " of them accepted Christ. (See 
the whole parable, verses 1-14.) 



200 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

to enter in by the narrow door." In Matt, vii, 
14 (the instance where our Lord uses the word), 
is given a description simply of the state of things 
as Christ observed them. Few to whom the 
Gospel was offered accepted it. The same is true 
now. But this clearly says nothing as to the final 
outcome of life. Few are walking in the way 
that leads to life, but men maybe saved in Christ 
in the last hour. Witness the familiar case of 
the thief on the cross. So many — the multitude — 
are walking in the way " that leadeth to destruc- 
tion/ but through grace may be, and no doubt 
many will be, saved at last. The way that leadeth 
to destruction is not itself destruction. In order 
to prove from this passage that the few only will 
be saved, it would be necessary to assume that 
to be lost now is to be lost forever. 

In favor of the doctrine that the great majority 
of the human race will be saved may be urged : 

1. The fact that children dying in infancy will 
be saved. Even Calvinists, as Dr. Hodge, now 
teach this doctrine. This writer says : " All who 
die in infancy are saved ' (Systematic Theology, 
vol. i, p. 26). u The Scriptures nowhere exclude 
any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born 
in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or 
unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the 



NUMBER OF THE LOST. 201 

redemption of Christ ' {ibid.). To die in child- 
hood is to such Calvinists a sign of election. 
" But we may still go a step further within 
the strict limits of the Reformed Creed, and 
maintain as a pious opinion that all departed 
infants belong to the number of the elect. Their 
early removal from a world of sin and temptation 
may be taken as an indication of God's special 
favor ' (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. i, p. 
380). From this teaching alone it follows that 
the majority of the human race will be saved, 
for the majority die before the age of account- 
ability. 

2. We cannot judge between the saved and 
the lost by a sharp line of moral distinction ; 
and, accordingly, many may be saved who by the 
standard of Christian morality manifest no sign 
of regenerate life. We have before pointed out 
this fact in relation to the heathen. The same 
may be said as to some persons in nominally 
Christian countries whose opportunities of moral 
improvement have been much limited. A few 
quotations in the line of this thought from sev- 
eral prominent writers will be in place : 

"We are, then, wholly ignorant of the rule by 
which they [the heathen] will be judged. What 
would be heavy sin in us may be none in them ; 



202 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

we cannot tell how far the exposure of infants 
may be a sin in China, unless God by his secret 
voice appeal to any individual parent against the 
hereditary custom, or cannibalism in a nation of 
cannibals. But since we are not God, and he has 
not bestowed on us his prerogative of searching 
the hearts, we have absolutely no ground upon 
which to form a judgment; nor do Christians 
form any. 

" With the actual heathen far out of reach of 
the Gospel must be counted a large portion of 
the poor which the Church has lost in large cities, 
as London and Paris, on whose souls the light 
of the Gospel never shone. London is, alas ! in 
all probability one of the largest heathen cities 
in the world, and very many of its inhabitants 
will be judged, we must suppose, by the same 
law as the heathen in China and Japan. ' God 
will/ in the great day, St. Paul says, * judge the 
secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my 
gospel.' The very terms forbid our judging, since 
they are the secrets of the heart which God will 
judge ' (Pusey, What is of Faith as to Everlast- 
ing Punishment? pp. 9, 10. See the whole of 
this section and the following one, pp. 7-18). 

" But if Abraham and Melchisedek, if Joseph 
and Moses, if Rahab and Cornelius, if a great 



NUMBER OF THE LOST. 203 

number of the chosen people in every age may 
have been penitent for sin, and accepted by the 
Father of mercies through the atonement yet to 
be made, or an atonement already made without 
their knowledge, surely no one can deny the pos- 
sibility of salvation to the heathen who know not 
the name of Jesus. Of course, no one is able to 
say how many of this class there have been among 
the heathen since the world began, or how many 
there may yet be before the end comes ; but, 
whether few or many, all who are so renewed in 
the temper of their minds that they will recog- 
nize Christ whenever he is made known to them, 
as fulfilling all their desire and hope, will be num- 
bered at the last great day with the redeemed ,J 
(A. Hovey, at supra, p. 173). 

" If the prayers and alms of Cornelius were 
had in divine remembrance — if in every nation 
he that feareth God and worketh righteousness 
is accepted of him — if our Lord heard the out- 
cry of the dying thief, and carried him as a trophy 
at once into the paradise whither he himself was 
just going in triumph, may we not, without either 
indulging in the universalistic delusion or contra- 
dicting our own doctrine, still cherish with Pusey 
a large and comforting hope respecting many, 
perhaps multitudes, who live and die, alas! out- 



204 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

side of the- blessed circle of the Household of 
Faith ? " (Morris, Is There Salvation After Death ? 
p. 236.) 

Is it not, we may ask, in connection with this 
doctrine that Christ's words concerning Tyre and 
Sidon and Sodom, and the two passages in First 
Peter, may be appropriately urged ? We have 
seen that they cannot teach a future probation 
for the reason that in all cases the representa- 
tions of mercy, however large, are concerning 
sins committed in this life alone. But we must 
confess we are not satisfied with the common 
interpretation of these passages, especially the 
two in First Peter. We cannot understand these 
latter passages, whatever more they may mean, 
to signify less than (1) That Christ in his disem- 
bodied condition went into the spirit-world ; (2) 
That there he preached unto the u spirits in 
prison" the Gospel; (3) That the spirits to 
whom he preached, among others, were those 
who " were disobedient, when the long-suffering 
of God waited in the days of Noah, while the 
ark was a preparing/ Can we believe all those 
people perished everlastingly after suffering the 
destruction of the flood ? May we not rather 
believe, in view of the teaching of Peter, that 
many of them are saved eternally, while at the 



NUMBER OF THE LOST. 205 

same time God could do no better than destroy 
them temporally ? 

If we are to distinguish between the temporal 
destructions of peoples and the eternal destruc- 
tion of individuals, it would seem that in the 
case of Tyre and Sidon and Sodom, and other 
ancient cities, many, perhaps multitudes, whose 
lives God destroyed with their cities will be 
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Nineveh 
was to be destroyed for its wickedness, and yet 
God said to Jonah that many of the people were 
so ignorant as to be unable to u discern between 
their right hand and their left hand ' (chapter iv, 
Ii). Can we suppose they would have been de- 
stroyed everlastingly with the destruction of their 
city, had Nineveh not repented ? We cannot 
suppose so, and this case must throw light upon 
all similar cases ; and we must conclude that the 
inference involved here is the correct one. 

3. The difficulties that we met in considering 
the doctrine of Universalism would be all the 
greater on the assumption that the majority of 
mankind will be lost. The divine love and fore- 
knowledge, and the question of a benevolent 
teleology, would be all the more difficult to 
understand. We cannot believe the majority of 
the race of men will be lost, in view of these 



206 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

facts, without the clearest revelation concerning 
it. This certainly is not given. 

It is in this last respect that the present 
doctrine, in urging these facts, differs from 
Universalism when it urges the same ; for in the 
case of the latter doctrine the revelation, as we 
have seen, is unmistakable. 

4. For the same reasons we can the more con- 
sistently urge passages of Scripture like the 
following in favor of the doctrine we are con- 
sidering : " He shall see of the travail of his soul, 
and shall be satisfied" (Isa. liii, 11); " Behold, 
the Lamb of God, w r hich taketh away the sin of 
the world !" (John i, 29), etc. Such passages as 
these could not well have been inspired in the 
confident foreknowledge of the damnation of the 
majority of men. 

Observe, however, we do not claim that such 
passages teach that the majority of men will be 
saved, but simply that, in the absence of a clear 
revelation that the majority will be lost, they 
encourage this hope. 

We would remind the reader, in conclusion, 
that our chief concern with the present question 
should be, as Christ no doubt made it, personal. 
According to our Lord, as we have seen, 
" many " will be lost, and our fear should be lest 



NUMBER OF THE LOST. 207 

we be among that number. " Strive to enter in 
by the narrow door : for many, I say unto you, 
shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able." 
4i But I will warn you whom ye shall fear : Fear 
him, which after he hath killed hath power to 
cast into hell ; yea, I say unto you, Fear him ' 
(Luke xii, 5). " But I buffet my body, and 
bring it into bondage : lest by any means, after 
that I have preached to others, I myself should 
be rejected" (1 Cor. ix, 27). 



'* Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade 
men." — 2 Cor. v, it 

' ( For our God is a consuming fire." — Heb. xii, 29. 



CHAPTER VI. 

The Nature of Future Punishment. 

THE nature of future punishment is a question 
in itself of the greatest importance, and is 
not to be confounded with either of the other 
chief questions discussed in this book. We 
place it here as the most suitable time for its 
consideration. Its importance arises from sev- 
eral facts. I. It is important that we should 
know, as fully as revealed, the nature of future 
punishment in order that the doctrine may have 
its proper influence upon the minds and hearts 
of men. It is in the nature of future punish- 
ment that the doctrine finds value as a deterrent 
from sin. 2. Its consideration is important, 
further, from the fact that its awfulness has been 
greatly exaggerated. The damnation of the lost 
is awful enough as represented in the Scriptures, 
without any human additions. 3. On the other 
hand, its terrors have been made largely to dis- 
appear by over-benevolent representations of it. 
Our aim shall be to present the doctrine in its 

true scriptural proportions. 
14 



210 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

As a matter of course, it is impossible to know 
the exact nature of future punishment except in 
the experience of it. It cannot be revealed. 
Consequently we find in the Scriptures only sen- 
sible and figurative representations of it. These 
are given under the following classified forms : 
i. " Fire " and the " worm." " Where their zvorm 
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched ' (Mark 
ix, 48). 2. " Outer darkness/" or " blackness of 
darkness/ " And cast ye out the unprofitable 
servant into the outer darkness" (Matt, xxv, 30). 
" For whom the blackness of darkness hath been 
reserved forever' (Jude 13; also 2 Pet. ii, 17). 
3. •'Perishing/' " destruction," " corruption," 
" death/ " For God so loved the world that he 
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believ- 
eth on him should not perish" (John iii, 16). "Who 
shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction 
from the face of the Lord and from the glory of • 
his might " (2 Thess. i, 9). " For he that soweth 
unto his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption ' 
(Gal. vi, 8). "This is the second death, even 
the lake of fire " (Rev. xx, 14). 4. "Torment." 
" And he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that 
thou wouldest send him to my father's house ; 
for I have five brethren ; that he may testify 
unto them, lest they also come into this place of 



NATURE OF PUNISHMENT. 211 

torment" (Lukexvi r 27, 28). " And they shall 
be tormented day and night for ever and ever ' 
(Rev. xx, 10). 5. Other expressions suggestive 
of the terribleness of the state of the wicked are 
" cast away ' and " lost." " But the bad they 
cast away ' (Matt, xiii, 48). " For what is a 
man profited, if he gain the whole world, and 
lose or forfeit his own self" (Luke ix, 25). As a 
result of being excluded from heaven, we are 
told " there shall be weeping and gnashing of 
teeth " (Matt, xxv, 30). 

Now, after allowing all we may be asked to 
allow for the natural exaggeration of Oriental 
hyperbole that may be found in these expres- 
sions, still we cannot but see in them the repre- 
sentation of a terrible reality for the wicked. 
" It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of 
the living God " (Heb. x, 31). Two things seem 
perfectly clear : (1) The lost will be excluded 
from the presence of God, and the life and 
blessedness of the saved. Only the righteous 
shall have right to the tree of life, and shall be 
permitted to enter in by the gates into the city 
(Rev. xxii, 14). This is the negative side of 
the punishment of the lost, and has been called 
the penalty of loss {poena damni), or absence of 
the beatific vision {carentia beatificce visionis). 



212 FUTURE RETRIBUTION, 

If this were all of hell we should seek diligently 
to escape it. But (2) it is also certain from the 
Bible representations of hell that the wicked will 
suffer a more positive penalty than is signified in 
these negative expressions. Such is implied in 
the w r ord " torment' used in the parable of the 
Rich Man and Lazarus, and in Rev. xx, 10. 
This, however, is most likely itself the result 
simply of being without God, the source of our 
life and joy. The negative penalty of loss in- 
volves the positive penalty of pain {poena sensus). 
The absence of the beatific vision creates the 
loneliness and desolateness of the soul that is 
" without God' and without "hope." The 
presence of darkness is but the absence of light, 
the presence of death but the absence of life. 

This exclusion from the divine presence, with 
its negative and positive implications, may in- 
involve also remorse (Luke xvi, 25) and the evils 
of association with the damned (Rev. xxii, 15). 
It, of course, implies exclusion from the enjoy- 
ments of this life (Hodge). 

We do not feel authorized to say less of the 
condition of the lost, nor need we say more. 

We are, accordingly, obliged to think the 
following representations too mild to express the 
true sense of the Scriptures. " The will, in the 



NA T URE OF P UNI SH MEN 7\ 213 

exercise of its imperishable gift of freedom, may- 
frustrate [the divine] education . . . ; but if it 
does so, it is because it * kicks against the pricks ' 
of the long-suffering that is leading it to repent- 
ance ; and ... it may accept even an endless 
punishment, and find peace in the acceptance " 
(Plumptre, Spirits in Prison, p. 340). " Thousands 
in this world are in conditions which other 
thousands pronounce worse than non-existence, 
but they themselves struggle hard and do their 
utmost to perpetuate their being — it may be 
through the fear of something worse, but more 
likely, in most cases, from an inherent natural 
love of conscious life. Sin may be declared to be 
exceeding sinful because it is offensive to God, 
whatever be its consequences to the sinner him- 
self; and it is so again, because to the sinner it 
is a bar to the attainment of an infinite good, 
and is the source of an evil inconceivably great, 
even though it do not wholly overbalance the 
bliss of being' (Miner Raymond, Systematic 
Theology, vol. i, p. 357). 

Such teaching, we are compelled to think, robs 
hell of its terrors, and contradicts the spirit and 
explicit representations of the Scriptures. 

On the other hand, however, it is not neces- 
sary to go beyond the Scripture representations 



214 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

in the matter, and picture to ourselves a state of 
things more terrible than that revealed. The 
following doctrines, therefore, maybe rejected as 
without warrant in the word of God : 

1. That which represents the u fire M of hell as 
literal fire. Few only (as does Dr. Pusey) hold to 
this view to-day. The commoner view makes 
the fire of perdition symbolize the punishment 
of the lost. 

Against the literal view may be urged : (i) 
The fact that if the " fire ' must be considered 
literal, so also must the " worm ; but these are 
incompatible. (2) The further representations 
of the state of the lost as given above are mu- 
tually exclusive on the basis of a literal inter- 
pretation. " Blackness of darkness/' is not con- 
sistent with literal fire. 

2. That which represents God as inflicting 
positive punishment. This is a very common 
view. To select one quotation out of a multi- 
tude, we may give the following : " Future suffer- 
ing is not exclusively the natural consequence 
of sin, but also includes positive inflictions ' 
(Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. iii, p. 868). 

We must ask the advocates of this view 
for the grounds of their assertion. We have not 
been able to find them. 



NATURE OF PUNISHMENT. 215 

3. Other excessive representations are all Dan- 
tean pictures of the condition of the lost. We 
know no warrant for such explorations and descrip- 
tions of the place and condition of the damned, 
and we certainly take no pleasure in such a task. 

4. We know no sufficient warrant, moreover, 
for the assertion made by some, that the lost will 
have their bodies given to them in the resurrec- 
tion in order to increase their sufferings. The 
statement is confessedly only an inference from 
the fact of their resurrection, and we should 
be extremely cautious of inferences upon a sub- 
ject about which we know so little.* 

But without being able to determine more pre- 
cisely than we— have the condition of the lost, 
we know from further Scripture representation 
that it is better for a man to pluck out a right 
eye, or cut off a right foot or arm, or to suffer the 
destruction of the whole body than to be cast into 
hell (Mark ix, 43, 45, 47 ; Luke xii, 4, 5) ; and that 
it w r ere good for such an one as is cast therein if 
he had not been born (Matt, xxvi, 24). 

* The ease with which some writers multiply their assertions 
upon this subject would suggest that they know much more 
about it than has been revealed. We know no part of our gen- 
eral subject where we should adhere more closely to the Script- 
ures than here ; and yet because so little is revealed writers are 
no doubt all the more tempted to add their own conjectures. 



" And these shall go away into everlasting punishment." — 
Matt, xxv, 46. 



CHAPTER VII. 

The Doctrine of Annihilation. 

THE doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked 
is, in the nature of the case, opposed to the 
doctrine of Universalism. Its advocates strenu- 
ously oppose the latter error. They strongly 
advocate eternal punishment ; not, however, as 
an eternal endurance, but in its results. If the 
wicked are annihilated, they say, their punish- 
ment is eternal in that its effects last forever. 
The doctrine, therefore, may properly be con- 
sidered in connection with the subject of the 
nature of future punishment. 

There are two forms of the doctrine — Annihi- 
lationism proper and the doctrine of Conditional 
Immortality, otherwise known as " life in Christ." 
The two doctrines are one in their outcome — the 
extinction of evil and evil-doers — but differ in 
other fundamental points. The chief points of 
difference concern the doctrine of native immor- 
tality and the method of ultimate annihilation. 
Annihilationism teaches that the soul was created 
immortal ; Conditional Immortality teaches that 



218 FUTURE RETRIBUTION, 

it was created mortal, with the capacity of im- 
mortalization. Immortality is a gift of God in 
Christ. If sin had not entered into the world 
this gift would have been conferred (sacrament- 
ally, we suppose) through the " tree of life," 
from whose fruit our first parents were excluded 
after their fall. Christ is the new tree of life 
through whom, under grace, we again find access 
to immortality. In the view of this doctrine 
immortality is thus an acquisition, not an original 
endowment ; and extinction of being is but the 
ultimate outcome of a responsible failure to ob- 
tain the life graciously offered to all in Christ. 
The other form of the doctrine, adhering to the 
metaphysical view that the soul is immortal by 
original constitution, teaches that its annihilation 
is by a divine destructive act corresponding to 
the divine creative act in its origination. In 
the doctrine of Conditional Immortality the soul 
dies of itself, ultimately, if without Christ; in the 
doctrine of Annihilation the soul that sinneth is 
ultimately destroyed ; its immortality, being for- 
feited through sin, is, in the end, taken from it. 
Both doctrines teach a limited duration of con- 
scious suffering for the wicked in the future life. 
Such, in brief, is a doctrine in its twofold 
aspect, which (especially in the form of life in 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 9 19 

Christ) is meeting with considerable favor in cer- 
tain very respectable quarters ; and we confess 
to a very strong liking for it. If our liking for a 
doctrine were all that we were required to con- 
sider we w r ould find no difficulty in knowing 
where to cast the anchor of our faith. Both 
doctrines (especially the latter) have much in their 
favor. A divine theodicy is much easier under 
either view than under the orthodox doctrine. 
One of the heaviest burdens the latter doctrine 
is required to sustain is the eternal continuance 
of evil in a benevolent universe. Annihilation- 
ism does away with this difficulty by providing 
for the ultimate extinction of evil when the good 
and the pure and the happy will be " all in all," 
when sin shall no longer exist even as a " speck 
on the infinite azure of eternity/' but when the 
last spot on the sun of righteousness shall be 
effaced. The doctrine (always especially the 
second form) is not wholly destitute of exeget- 
ical points. But when tested by the whole tes- 
timony of the Scriptures, we are compelled to 
believe that it is found wanting, and must, there- 
fore, be rejected. We part from it as from a 
doctrine we would like to believe. 

As the two forms of the doctrine readily clas- 
sify in all essentia] respects, they may be consid- 



220 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

ered together. We propose in the present chap- 
ter to review the chief grounds of the general 
doctrine. 

I. The argument of the Annihilationist is based 
chiefly upon the use in the Scriptures of such 
words as "death," "destruction," "perishing," 
etc. To quote solely from the New Testament, 
some of the texts upon which much confidence 
is placed are as follows: " For the wages of sin 
is death" (Rom. vi, 23); " For if ye live after 
the flesh, ye must die " {ibid., viii, 13) ; " And be 
not afraid of them which kill the body, but are 
not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him 
which is able to destroy both soul and body in 
hell " (Matt, x, 28) ; " Broad is the way that 
leadeth to destruction' (Matt, vii, 13); "For 
God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him 
should not perish, but have eternal life " (John 
iii, 16); "Who shall suffer punishment, even 
eternal destruction from the face of the Lord 
and from the glory of his might " (2 Thess. i, 9). 

But we reply to the argument based upon 
such passages of Scripture, that these words are 
used in a figurative sense, and properly suggest 
simply the nature of eternal punishment. In 
proof of this assertion we offer the following 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 221 

facts: (i) The words "death," "destruction,' 1 
etc., are used of persons in this life who are liv- 
ing in sin. The prodigal son, the "sheep,' and 
the "piece of silver ' were lost (destroyed), and 
Christ came " to seek and to save that which 
was lost [destroyed]* ' (Luke xv, 3—7, 8-10, 24, 
32 ; xix, 10). Men are, according to Paul, al- 
ready " dead in trespasses and sins ' (Eph. ii, 
I, 5 ; Col. ii, 13), and "she that giveth herself 
to pleasure is dead while she liveth ' (1 Tim. 
v, 6) — dead evidently to the higher life of right- 
eousness and holiness. The prodigal son also 
was " dead ' as well as " destroyed ! (Luke xv, 
24, 32). The morally and spiritually corrupt are 
the "dead" andthe "destroyed," according to the 
New Testament ; and the eternity of the finally 
lost is but the endless continuation of this state 
begun on earth, as the eternal life of the right- 
eous is but the endless continuance of a life of 
holiness begun here. The Platonic use of these 
words in the sense of extinction of being is 

* It is an unfortunate comment that Dr. Petavel (Extinction 
of Evil, p. 46) makes on these cases when he says : " But for a 
time the prodigal son was as good as lost [destroyed] to his fa- 
ther, and the coin as good as destroyed to its owner." Yes, we 
reply, as good as lost to the father and as good as destroyed to 
the owner, but not destroyed in themselves. The eternally lost 
are as good as destroyed to their rather, and worse than de- 
stroyed to themselves, but not annihilated. 



222 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

not that of the New Testament. (2) The word 
" life ' is used, correspondingly, with reference 
not simply to existence, but to a life of right- 
eousness. There are several instances where 
the word cannot be made naturally to signify 
immortality. One ; of these is Rom. viii, 6 : " For 
the mind of the flesh is death ; but the mind of 
the spirit is life and peace." Other instances 
are : " But godliness is profitable for all things, 
having promise of the life which now is, and of 
that which is to come' (1 Tim. iv, 8); "We 
know that we have passed out of death into life, 
because we love the brethren. He that loveth 
not abideth in death ' (1 John iii, 14). Only an 
artificial interpretation can make either the word 
" death " or " life " in these passages signify more 
than a metaphorical condition of soul. (3) Con- 
firmatory of the figurative interpretation of these 
terms is to be offered the fact that the New 
Testament repeatedly uses figurative expressions 
concerning the state of the soul. " Ye must be 
born again ' (John iii, 7) is a familiar instance. 
Christ here did not mean that the soul needed 
to be brought into existence, but that it needed 
to be renewed in righteousness, and brought into 
the life of righteousness. (4) 2 Thess. i, 9, in- 
stead of furnishing evidence of annihilation, 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 223 

explicitly contradicts the annihilationist's use 
of the word " destruction." " Who shall suffer 
punishment, even eternal destruction from the 
face of the Lord and from the glory of his 
might.' Here the meaning of the term " de- 
struction" is defined in the subsequent part of 
the sentence. The destruction consists, evident- 
ly, according to the apostle, in the banishment 
of the soul from the presence of God and his 
glory. Nothing could be plainer than the mean- 
ing of Paul in this place. If he meant to teach 
the doctrine of Annihilation his language was 
wholly superfluous and meaningless. On the 
orthodox supposition his meaning is perfectly 
plain. (5) There are expressions in the New 
Testament which, by teaching eternal punish- 
ment, preclude the idea of annihilation. "And 
these shall go away into eternal punishment ' 
(Matt, xxv, 46). " And they shall be tormented 
day and night for ever and ever ' ' (Rev. xx, 10). 
(6) There are no instances of the use of the 
words in question where the orthodox view is 
not perfectly simple and intelligible. 

2. But it is said in response that in the cases 
referred to, and all others like them, the words 
'• death," u destruction,' etc., though they in or- 
dinary use properly signify annihilation, are used 



224 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

proleptically. One writer, commenting on the 
phrase " dead in trespasses and sins," says : " We 
believe . . . that the apostle's statement means, 
' Ye were [virtually] dead '—on your way to death. 
Death was there, though only in its germ ; death 
had begun its work, but was prevented from 
completing it. By prolepsis Paul anticipates the 
fatal results of total destruction, moral and 
physical, that sin would have wrought in his 
readers had they not received the Gospel ' ' (Pet- 
avel, Extinction of Evil, p. 175). In confirma- 
tion of this view it is shown that prolepsis is a 
figure of speech sometimes used in the Script- 
ures. Instances are : " Whom he justified, them 
he also glorified ' (Rom. viii, 30) ; " Death is 
swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. xv, 54). 

But we reply, while we grant that prolepsis is 
a true biblical figure of speech, we cannot admit 
the fact in this case. (1) The hypothesis is evi- 
dently devised not to meet a necessity in the use 
of New Testament language (this certainly, as 
before said, is intelligible and natural on the 
orthodox supposition), but to meet the exigency 
of a theory which cannot otherwise maintain it- 
self. Prolepsis in the Scriptures we admit ; but 
to affirm this of language where there is no other 
necessity than the emergency of a foregone con- 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 225 

elusion is not warrantable. When the advocates 
of annihilation can find one clear instance where 
the words " death/' " lost," and the like, cannot 
signify, naturally and properly, spiritual degen- 
eracy or the moral ruin of the soul, or when 
they on other grounds than these clearly establish 
their doctrine, then they may present their hy- 
pothesis of prolepsis as a demand of exegesis ; 
not till then. And not till then will their doc- 
trine carry conviction. (2) This meaning is not 
the natural impression that the language of the 
New Testament conveys to an unprejudiced 
reader. (3) It is contradicted by "4" and u 5 ' 
above, in which we show that the apostle Paul 
defines his use of the word " destruction," and 
that Matt, xxv, 46, and Rev, xx, 10, expressly 
teach eternal suffering. (4) If we make the 
words " death " and " destruction ' in the cases 
referred to signify a prolepsis, we must under- 
stand the word " life,' when used with reference 
to the soul, in the same way. But we have seen 
that it cannot so refer in some cases. When 
Paul says, " Having promise of the life that now 
is,' he evidently does not mean existence, but 
life in its higher worth and good. He does not 
mean more when he refers to " that [life] which 

is to come.' In this case the metaphorical use 
15 



226 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

of " life ' is not only perfectly natural ; the sense 
of life as immortality is positively excluded. 

3. Again, response is made to our objection 
from Matt, xxv, 46, and Rev. xx, 10, as follows: 
With regard to Rev. xx, 10, that no confidence 
is to be placed upon this for the reason that the 
Book of Revelation is a book largely of symbol- 
isms, and theology, accordingly, can find only 
small ground in it to rest upon (Petavel, tit 
supra, p. 171). No less than six different at- 
tempts are made to avoid the manifest objection 
from Matt, xxv, 46. These are : (1) That noXaotq 
(punishment) is not an absolutely certain reading 
of the original text. In proof of this is cited the fact 
that in certain manuscripts of the ancient Latin 
version of Matthew — the Itala — the word u fire ' 
is found instead of" punishment/' making the text 
read : " And these shall go away into eternal fire/ 
It is assumed, of course, that " eternal fire ' is not 
so strong an expression as " eternal punishment ' 
(White, Life in Christ, p. 396 ; after him Row r , 
Future Retribution, p. 268). (2) It is said that 
the word tcoXaoig itself suggests annihilation. 
" The etymology of the word kolasis, translated 
' punishment ' in the usual version, may lead us to 
an apprehension of its intrinsic meaning. Lexi- 
cographers refer it to a root signifying ' to break 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 227 

by striking, to amputate, to shorten, to dismem- 
ber, to mutilate ; ' from the said root our word 
iconoclast, l breaker, or destroyer, of images,' is 
derived. Kolasis, therefore, denotes punishment 
involving a cutting off, a loss/ It is said, in 
harmony with this, that all punishment involves 
loss. " A fine consists in loss of money ; im- 
prisonment, in loss of liberty ; death, in loss of 
life ' (Petavel, Extinction of Evil, p. 53). (3) It 
is said that the punishment of the wicked is 
eternal in its results, and that tcoXaoig ai&vioq is to 
be understood in this sense after the analogy of 
such expressions as " eternal judgment ' (Heb. 
vi, 2) and "eternal redemption' (Heb. ix, 12) 
(Petavel, pp. 33", 50). (4) Again, it is said that 
pain is not an essential part of punishment. " It 
is a mistake to think that punishment necessarily 
involves pain. ... If any rash individual at- 
tempted to gaze at the sun, he would first ex- 
perience intense pain in his eyeballs. Should he 
disregard the admonitory voice of suffering, and 
persevere, the pain would cease, but he would 
have become blind. The loss of sight would be 
his punishment, and not the temporary anguish 
that forewarned him of the consequences of his 
folly." "As instances of punishment without pain, 
we may quote the English law which condemned 



228 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

the suicide to an ignominious burial in the high- 
way, with a stake driven through the body, and 
without Christian rites ; also the custom preva- 
lent in certain North American States of render- 
ing criminals insensible by chloroform before 
their execution. Even without chloroform be- 
heading and hanging are far less painful and 
terrible than many so-called natural deaths. If 
the essence of punishment were suffering, fifty 
lashes of the cat-o '-nine-tails would be a graver 
penalty than death on the scaffold, and murder- 
ers should be made to endure tortures propor- 
tionate to the number and atrocity of their 
crimes " {ibid., pp. 56, 57). (5) It is also said 
that the word alcjviog does not signify everlasting 
(Row, Future Retribution, t pp. 204-218). (6) 
When all of these devices fail, writers upon this 
subject quite generally warn us that we must not 
seek to build so great a doctrine as that of 
eternal suffering upon so slight a basis as one or 
two passages of the divine word ; that this is like 
balancing " a mountain on the point of a needle," 
etc. 

As to the first of these responses, we may say 
that while the Book of Revelation is confessedly 
a book largely of symbolisms, this does not affect 
the objection we urge from it to the present 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION, 229 

doctrine. The verse to which we refer, if it 
means any thing, clearly involves : I .) The punish- 
ment of the devil after the judgment. 2.) Eter- 
nal punishment. We have already seen that the 
phrase uq roi)g alCjvaq t&v aidjvcjv is used to signify 
an intensified idea of eternity. 3.) Suffering as 
the essence of this eternal punishment. " Tor- 
ment ' can by no sort of exegetical legerdemain 
possibly be made to signify annihilation. 

We may consider the other responses in their 
order. 

(1) As to the reading of " fire ' instead of 
" punishment.' Even Dr. White does not urge 
this point as at all conclusive. " We shall, how- 
ever, treat this passage on the supposition that 
. . . Matthew wrote what we find in these ex- 
pressions ' {Life in Christ, p. 396). It is only 
claimed that the reading " fire ' is found in "the 
two most' ancient, and several more modern, 
manuscripts of the Italic Version. " This cer- 
tainly can weigh nothing against the combined tes- 
timony of all the other versions and manuscripts. 
Besides, it is easier to see how the word " fire ' 
could be interpolated in this verse by some tran- 
scriber than the word " punishment ' (fcoXaotc;), 
since u fire" (r:vp) is used just before in verse 41. 
The transcriber who made the mistake had just 



230 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

written nvp aluviov. To make the mistake of 
writing noXaocc al&vioq a few verses after would 
have been wholly unnatural. But the mistake 
of writing nvp aluviov in the second instance, as 
he had just written in the previous instance, was 
wholly natural and easy. 

(2) The response that all punishment involves 
loss, and that this is signified in the word KoXaoiq. 
We reply, there can be no doubt that punish- 
ment involves loss, but not annihilation. Much 
less does it involve the annihilation of him who 
suffers it. It involves the loss of something to 
him, but not the loss of himself in the sense of 
extinction of being. To suffer a fine is to lose 
money, to suffer imprisonment is to lose liberty, 
to suffer death is to lose life ; but this is not ex- 
tinction in either case. As to the word n6Xaon; y 
we have already seen that it is used by the Uni- 
versalist to establish his claim. It is used with 
as little plausibility by the Annihilationist. 
There can be no doubt whatever that the word, 
whatever its etymology, was used to signify 
punishment in general without reference to the 
mode or result of its infliction. The punish- 
ment (itoXao'.q) of Andronicus was by death 
(2 Mace, iv, 38). The Jewish authorities found 
• ' nothing how they might punish " the apostles 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 231 

(Acts iv, 21). The word never signified annihila- 
tion. 

(3) Eternal punishment is eternal in its effects. 
But this view will not explain Rev. xx, 10. Nor 
will it satisfy the spirit of the passage in Mat- 
thew. The whole structure of this sentence is 
well qualified to favor the orthodox view. " And 
these shall go away into eternal punishment." 
We cannot, except by forced construction, make 
this mean : " And these shall be finally annihi- 
lated.' 1 The going away into eternal punishment 
is just such language as might have been used 
by our Lord to signify eternal suffering. More- 
over, this is its common impression upon an un- 
prejudiced reader. Again, the Annihilationist 
no more than the Universalist can explain the 
contrasted phrases in this verse. There is no 
more reason, except through the exigency of a 
foregone conclusion, to say " eternal punish- 
ment ' means the eternal result of temporal suf- 
fering than to say " eternal life ' means the 
eternal result of a temporal existence. The two 
phrases are evidently intended parallels, and 
their unforced impression will forever witness 
against both the Annihilationist and Universalist 
hypotheses. Further, the Annihilationist him- 
self concedes that this phrase does not mean the 



232 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

eternal result of a single act, as in the analogous 
cases cited, where " eternal judgment ' means 
the eternal result of an act of judgment and 
" eternal redemption ' the eternal result of the 
atonement; for he teaches a gradual extinction 
of the lost. They go away into a punishment 
that will ultimately be annihilation. Still further, 
in the analogous cases the context compels the 
secondary construction ; not so in this. Lastly, 
the Jews of Christ's time, who, as we have seen, 
taught eternal suffering for some, and who also 
taught annihilation for others, did not use lan- 
guage like that in question to signify the second 
doctrine. In regard to sinners of Israel the 
School of Hillel taught " that they are tormented 
in Gehenna for twelve months, after which their 
bodies and souls are burnt up and scattered as 
dust under the feet of the righteous ; but it sig- 
nificantly excepts from this number certain classes 
of transgressors ' who go down to Gehinnom and 
are punished there to ages of ages' (Eders- 
heim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 
ii, p. 792). In view of this teaching, and the lan- 
guage used to convey it, there is no way of mis- 
taking the language of our Lord. 

(4) The response which affirms that pain is not 
an essential part of punishment. This, we reply, 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 233 

is a. contradiction in terms. There is no punish- 
ment without pain of some kind. To be sure it 
need not be physical pain ; this, indeed, is not 
always the severest. The supposed cases of 
painless punishment referred to by Dr. Petavel 
are not apt instances. Is there no pain to a man 
who by a rash act destroys his eyesight except 
that which is experienced in the act ? Will he 
not suffer from the loss of his eyesight as long 
as he lives? As to the English law that con- 
demned the suicide to an ignominious burial in 
the highway with a stake driven through his 
body, this can only be said to be punishment to 
the offender in an accommodated sense. It was 
an example to others, and if properly a punish- 
ment to the guilty one, only so in its anticipation. 
In this latter sense it was punishment tc the sui- 
cide, and only as such could it have any deterrent 
effect upon others. The pain experienced in the 
thought of this ignominious burial was what gave 
it its deterring force, if it had any, and what 
properly constituted its penalty. Again, is there 
no pain in being hung even if the criminal is ren- 
dered insensible by an anaesthetic ? Is there not 
pain in the thought of dying the felon's death ? 
And if there is greater suffering in the lash of the 
cat-o'-nine-tails than in death on the scaffold, 



234 FUTURE RETRIBUTION'. 

and the murderer deserves the worst form of 
punishment of the two, why, in the name of com- 
mon-sense, not give him the punishment of the 
former and save him from the latter ? It will take 
Dr. Petavel a long time to persuade the world that 
there is more suffering in the first than in the last. 
We do not teach that there is conscious eternal 
suffering in all punishment, but simply that suffer- 
ing is an essential element of all punishment ; and 
that " eternal punishment ' involves eternal suf- 
fering. 

(5) The Annihilationist as well as the Univer- 
salist seeks to prove that aldjvtog does not signify 
" everlasting/' Enough, however, has been said 
upon this point in considering the doctrine of 
the latter. 

(6) As to building the doctrine of future suf- 
fering upon a few passages of Scripture. In this 
objection the Annihilationist practically surren- 
ders his doctrine. It is a virtual confession that 
a few passages of Scripture teach the orthodox 
view. Again, how many times was it necessary 
for our Lord to say, " And these shall go away 
into eternal punishment/' in order to convince 
these writers that he meant to teach this doctrine ? 
A thousand times would not more perfectly 
teach it than this once, although repetition em- 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION, 235 

phasizes. But this is accomplished in the use of 
other language, as that which the Annihilation- 
ist himself urges, and by the whole implication 
of the gospels. We have tried to set forth the 
full impression of this doctrine in the first chapter. 
4. The Annihilationist seeks to augment his 
argument based upon the terms " death " de- 
struction/' and the like, by such Scriptures as 
the following: " If a man abide not in me, he is 
cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and they 
gather them, and cast them into the fire, and 
they are burned ' (John xv, 6). " And if thy 
hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good 
for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than 
having thy two hands to go into hell, into the 
unquenchable fire ' (Mark ix, 43). It is said 
fire " symbolizes total destruction.' It is also 
the agent of the destruction of the wicked. " Fire 
changes the diamond, the hardest of all sub- 
stances, into a subtle vapor, dissolves granite and 
converts it into lava. . . . No sort of life is com- 
patible with fire ; and, according to the Bible, 
destruction by fire is the doom of the ungodly ; 
1 for, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as 
an oven ; and all the proud, yea, and all that do 
wickedly, shall be stubble : and the day that 
cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of 



236 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor 
branch ' " (Petavel, p. 44). 

But it will not be claimed that these passages 
can teach the doctrine if those already considered 
do not. Besides, there is no more reason, as 
already seen in a previous chapter, for affirming 
that the " fire " threatened the sinner is a literal 
fire than that the " worm -'' and the " outer dark- 
ness are literal — incompatible representations. 
All of these are but sensible and figurative rep- 
resentations used to signify the character of 
future suffering. 

5. The Annihilationist seeks to build his doc- 
trine from the positive side upon the word " life ' 
as used in the New Testament. Life, he says, is 
immortality, as " death ' is extinction. This life 
is in Christ. It will not be necessary to quote 
passages in which this word is found, as the 
reader by consulting his concordance can readily 
find access to many of them. Nor will it be nec- 
essary to respond to the argument based upon 
them at any great length, since the interpretation 
of this word stands or falls with what has already 
been said concerning " death ' and its kindred 
words. We simply desire to reiterate one or two 
remarks before made. One of these is that there 
is no instance of the use of the word u life ' in 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 237 

the New Testament that is not compatible with 
the orthodox interpretation. The other is that 
the word is so used in some instances as positively 
to exclude the connotation of immortality. We 
quote other instances than those given. " And 
he said unto them, Take heed, and keep your- 
selves from all covetousness : for a man's life con- 
sisteth not in the abundance of the things which 
he possesseth " (Luke xii, 15). " Jesus therefore 
said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and 
drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. 
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the 
last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my 
blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh 
and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in 
him ' (John vi, 53-56). What more reason to 
interpret " life " here literally than to interpret 
" flesh " and " blood/' as do the Romanists, in 
the same way? " Again therefore Jesus spake 
unto them, saying, I am the light of the world : 
he that folio vveth me shall not walk in darkness, 
but shall have the light of life " (John viii, 12). 
If we cannot interpret " light ' ' and " darkness ' 
literally, why should we interpret " life ' so in 
this verse ? " The thief cometh not, but that he 



238 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

may steal, and kill, and destroy : I come that 
they may have life, and may have it abundantly " 
(John x, 10). Suppose we understand the word 
" life " here to signify immortality, what will be 
the result upon the sense of this passage ? It 
would then read : " I come that they may have 
immortality, and may have it abundantly/' Will 
the literalist tell us what an abundance of immor- 
tality is ? By his interpretation the sense of the 
passage is destroyed. There are degrees of 
spiritual life and righteousness in Christ, but not 
degrees of immortality. 

6. Argument is attempted by the Annihila- 
tionist from considerations of the divine love 
and justice. These coincide perfectly with the 
same as presented by the Universalist, and 
have been sufficiently considered in refuting the 
doctrine of the latter. 

7. It is said that native and inamissible im- 
mortality is not revealed in the Bible ; that the 
doctrine is borrowed from Plato and not derived 
from the Scriptures. It is said further to be 
positively opposed by the Scriptures. The two 
chief passages upon which reliance is placed in 
proof are Gen. iii, 4, 22-24, an d Rom. ii, 7. It is 
said, according to the former passage immortality 
was conditioned upon the tree of life. As to 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 239 

the second, it is said that God " only hath im- 
mortality " (i Tim. vi, 1 6), and that we attain it 
by seeking it. Again, it is said that " enforced ' 
immortality is contrary to the teaching of " uni- 
versal analogy." " All about us in the world we 
behold a struggle for existence and the survival 
of the fittest. Be transformed in order to live ! 
Such is the great law of nature. Such is also 
the great law of the Gospel. What, from this 
point of view, shall befall those free beings who 
resist the required transformation and, in lieu of 
progressing, recoil voluntarily and obstinately 
toward animalism ? Evolutionary science itself 
exhibits examples of retrogression in nature, 
degenerations, backward progress. Without 
culture superior types revert to the primitive 
type. The conscious being may revert toward 
the unconscious, and in fact the sleep which 
takes possession of each of us every day is 
like the daily menace of this unconsciousness 
from which we have scarcely emerged ' {Extinc- 
tion of Evil, p. 96). We are told, still further, 
that we are to distinguish, according to the 
Scriptures, between the soul's survival of death 
and the resurrection and its inamissible im- 
mortality. " I have also drawn the reader's at- 
tention to the fact that two questions which 



240 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

ought to be kept entirely distinct have been 
habitually confounded together in this con- 
troversy. One of these is, Have we reason for 
believing that man will survive the dissolution 
of the body? the other, Will that survival be of 
endless duration?' (C. A. Row, Future Retri- 
bution, p. 408). 

To all of this we respond in order. 

(1) Immortality not revealed. To this we 
reply, not only is the immortality of the soul 
every-where assumed in the Scriptures, as is the 
existence of God, but it is also involved in the 
fact of eternal punishment as already proved by 
the Scriptures. Again, it is involved in Chrises 
conversation with the Sadducees recorded in 
Matt, xxii, 23-33 ; Mark xii, 18-27 ; Luke xx, 
27-40 : " And there came to him certain of the 
Sadducees, they which say that there is no resur- 
rection ; and they asked him, saying, Master, 
Moses wrote unto us, that if a man's brother die, 
having a wife, and he be childless, his brother 
should take the wife, and raise up seed unto his 
brother. There were therefore seven brethren : 
and the first took a wife, and died childless ; 
and the second ; and the third took her ; and 
likewise the seven also left no children, and died. 
Afterward the woman also died. In the resur- 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 241 

rection therefore whose wife of them shall she 
be ? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus 
said unto them, The sons of this world marry, 
and are given in marriage : but they that are ac- 
counted worthy to attain to that world, and the 
resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor 
are given in marriage : for neither can they die 
any more : for they are equal unto the angels ; 
and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrec- 
tion. But that the dead are raised, even Moses 
showed, in the place concerning the Bush, when 
he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and 
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now 
he is not the God of the dead, but of the living : 
for all live unto him. And certain of the scribes 
answering said, Master, thou hast well said. 
For they durst not any more ask him any ques- 
tion." Now there can be no reasonable doubt 
that Jesus in this conversation took the side of 
the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection 
and the immortality of the soul, against the 
Sadducees, who believed in neither (Acts xxiii, 
8). It is a pure assumption to affirm, as does 
Dr. White, that Christ contradicted the doctrine 
of the Pharisees in this matter as well as that of 
the Sadducees. The well-known positions of 

these two parties among the Jews (and there was 
1G 



242 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

no middle party) makes it certain that Christ's 
unqualified approbation of the doctrine of the 
Pharisees in this conversation with the Saddu- 
cees implies his approval of the former's doctrine 
of the native immortality of the soul. If Jesus 
had meant to teach a doctrine neither of the 
Pharisees nor Sadducees, but one midway be- 
tween the two, he certainly would not have used 
the language that he did without guarding it 
against the doctrine of the former. The fact 
furnishes as clear ground for the inference that 
Jesus assumed the native immortality of the soul 
as should be desired. 

(2) The Scriptures opposed to native immor- 
tality. As to the passage in Genesis urged to 
prove this, w r e reply that it can be of force only 
on the assumption that " to die' meant to be 
annihilated. But this would be begging the 
whole question, for it is just this point that is in 
dispute. There certainly is no more difficulty in 
supposing the tree of life to be able to conserve 
physical and spiritual life than in supposing it 
able to impart immortality. In either case it 
could only have possessed this power sacra- 
mentally ; and there is nothing in the narrative 
itself to lead us to suppose that its office was to 
impart immortality except we assume that man 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 243 

was created mortal — the very thing, as just said, 
in question. Besides, when it is remembered, as 
already remarked, that the immortality of the 
soul is every-where assumed in the Scriptures — 
Old and New — it becomes impossible to inter- 
pret the narrative in question according to the 
peculiar view of the doctrine of conditional im- 
mortality. As to the passage in Romans we 
need only say that it is to be understood to sig- 
nify a blessed immortality.* Analogous to this 
use of the word acpdapoia (the word used in this 
place, and translated " incorruption " in the Re- 
vised Version) is its use in the Septuagint. (See 
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 
Thayer.) Besides, all the other facts in the case 
necessitate this interpretation, and no violence 
is thereby done to the passage. 

(3) The argument from analogy. We have 
little to do with this argument except to refer to 
it, for the reason that a skillful writer can find 
proof from the so-called analogy of nature for 
any doctrine that he undertakes to prove. We 



* There can be no doubt that the Greek words a<pdapoia (the 
word in Rom. ii, 7, and translated " incorruption " by our re- 
visers) and adavaoia (translated alike in the Authorized and Re- 
vised Versions by our word "immortality") are used synony- 
mously in the New Testament. Examine 1 Cor. xv, 53, 54 ; 1 
Tim. i, 17. 



244 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

are abundantly persuaded that analogy can 
serve safely only two functions, namely, that of 
illustration, and to remove objections to doctrines 
involved in difficulties. Even Butler, the great 
master in this field, strikes us as strong only 
where he seeks to remove objections to the 
doctrines he considers.* 

(4) Survival does not involve immortality 
according to the Scriptures. But we assert 
directly the contrary. The Scriptures nowhere 
make the distinction between survival and im- 
mortality. This is a distinction devised, like the 
doctrine of prolepsis, to meet the peculiar 
emergency of this doctrine. Its advocates had 
need of it, and they created it. This will be 
evident when it is remembered that no such 
distinction was ever made outside of the Script- 
ures. Both in ancient and modern times it has 
been customary to argue for the immortality of 
the soul as if this were involved in the survival 
of the soul in the dissolution of the body. Un- 
less it can be shown that the Bible explicitly de- 
parts from this custom the alleged distinction 



*An example of both the weakness and the strength of the 
argument from analogy has lately appeared in Drummond's 
Natural Law in the Spiritual World — a book weak in its 
fundamental principle (the identity of natural and spiritual law), 
but strong in its apt and beautiful illustrations. 



DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 245 

will fall to the ground. But this cannot be 
shown. 

From purely exegetical considerations, there- 
fore, we are compelled to reject the present 
doctrine; and simply say, in conclusion, that the 
convictions of men in all ages and parts of the 
world concerning the soul's native immortality 
are not lightly to be set aside. We do not seek 
to base our doctrine upon this primarily ; nor 
upon metaphysical considerations of the soul's 
immortality. These could weigh nothing in our 
view against the clear teaching of the Scriptures 
to the contrary ; but finding the doctrine assumed 
every-where in the Scriptures, we may find con- 
firmation of it in these extra-biblical facts and 
arguments. We see no reason, moreover, in the 
metaphysical nature of the soul (this being 
granted) to prevent its annihilation. He who 
created it is able to destroy it ; but this also is 
not revealed, but the contrary. 



" For the wrath [justice] of God is revealed from heaven 

against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold 

the truth in unrighteousness " — Rom. i, 18. 

"Just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints." — Rev. 
xv, 3. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

The Reason or Law of Necessity in Future Punishment. 

WE have now sufficiently considered the fact 
and nature of future punishment. One 
other task yet remains, namely, to investigate 
the reason or law of necessity in the punishment 
of the lost. Why must the wicked be punished 
forever ? 

This is, perhaps, the least important part of our 
subject, and yet it is not without interest, and its 
consideration will not be without value. Several 
chapters might be devoted to its discussion, but 
we prefer to embrace it within the compass of a 
single chapter. 

Any proposed solution of the problem that 
deserves so much as a hearing must begin by 
taking for granted some real necessity ; and not, 
as in Calvinism, by making the fact of punish- 
ment the result of divine caprice. Excluding the 
answer of Calvinism, and postulating some deep 
necessity, we inquire wherein that necessity lies. 

i. Is it in fixation of character? This is a 
well-known doctrine, and is found in much of 



248 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

the current teaching upon the subject. Its fun- 
damental principle is that character, by the con- 
stant and long indulgence of sin, becomes so 
confirmed in badness that it bears in itself its own 
unalterable, and therefore necessary, doom. Thus 
Mr. Joseph Cook says : 

" I did not make the universe ; but the universe 
is so made that whoever sins against light draws 
blood oh the spiritual retina of the moral eyes. 
It is the most mysterious thing in the penalties 
the soul is called on to endure, that sinning 
against light blinds us to the very illumination 
needed to rectify our condition. That is a fact 
of science ; that is a terrific philosophical truth 
which cannot be declaimed out of sight ; that is 
a tremendous, indisputable circumstance in nat- 
ural law ; and on it I plant myself when I say 
reason shows that resisting the light that comes 
in death may fix character and so end proba- 
tion " {Boston Monday Lectures : Occident ; , p. 59). 

Of course, whatever ends probation is itself 
the law of necessity in eternal punishment. So 
Mr. Cook would have us understand ; and on the 
ground of the fixed character would he exclude 
repentance after death, and justify to human rea- 
son the compatibility of eternal punishment with 
divine benevolence. 



REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 249 

Certainly it would follow, if the doctrine were 
true, that there could be no repentance after 
death, and no blame could be cast upon divine 
goodness ; but, however plausible and convenient 
the theory may appear, when tested by the Script- 
ures it is found to be untenable. Several facts 
will demonstrate its untenableness : 

(i) ^//character is fixed without helping grace. 
This fact will not be disputed by any one ; but it 
is lost sight of in its bearing upon the doctrine 
under discussion. The theory of Mr. Cook tacitly 
assumes that no character is fixed but that which 
becomes so from long and habitual sinning; 
whereas, as just said, all character is unalterably 
fixed without the intervention of divine grace. 
Under the economy of redemption the Holy 
Ghost is the light that lighteth every man that 
cometh into the world, so that no character is 
left to its naturally fixed condition of moral im- 
potency in the beginning ; but we must carefully 
remember that the reason of this moral or spir- 
itual strength is in the presence and power of the 
Holy Spirit. If for any reason the Holy Spirit 
should take his flight from us, character would 
be forever sealed in ruin from our consequent 
weakness or inability to reform. 

It is true, as Mr. Cook maintains, that charac- 



250 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

ter under sin becomes less and less susceptible 
to appeals of religious truth ; " that sinning 
against light blinds us to the very illumination 
needed to rectify our condition :" but why? The 
answer of the fixation doctrine is, Because char- 
acter by sin becomes more and more hardened, 
and, therefore, less and less susceptible to the 
influence of the Holy Ghost, who alone can ap- 
ply truth to the hearts of men in conviction and 
salvation. Thus Mr. Cook again : 

" I believe that light is kept before the lost. I 
believe that God will be all in all both in the 
saved and in the lost, and that the fact that God 
is all in all in a lost soul is the chief source of 
its misery" {Occident, p. 67). 

This is the natural conclusion of the doctrine 
as applied in its outcome to the future life. The 
Holy Spirit is ever present, but finds its inability 
for good in the moral steadfastness of the lost 
soul. It ever strives to save, but is debarred by 
the soul's fixedness in evil. 

How obviously contradictory is this to those 
passages of Scripture which signify the with- 
drawal of the Holy Ghost on account of sin and 
imply the moral ruin of the soul from that with- 
drawal ? " Cast me not away from thy presence ; 
and take not thy Holy Spirit from me ' (Psa. 



REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 251 

li, u). "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of 
God, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of 
redemption ' (Eph. iv, 30). Here the danger 
is not that the character will become so fixed 
by sin that the Holy Spirit cannot influence it, 
but that the Holy Ghost will cease its wooing 
and leave the soul to its natural state of ruin. 
As sinning tends to drive the Holy Spirit from 
us, we infer that in proportion as its influence 
grows less on account of our sins are we less 
and less susceptible to appeals of religious truth. 
As we become hardened to religious impressions 
on account of the Spirit's gradual but sure with- 
drawal on account of sin, it follows that when 
the Spirit ceases to operate upon the heart 
there is then no further hope of moral or relig- 
ious good. Left alone, man's character is forever 
sealed in ruin. Why the Holy Spirit finally 
ceases to strive with rebellious man will be seen 
when we come to consider the theory which gives 
the true account of the necessity in eternal pun- 
ishment. Why the Holy Spirit gradually leaves 
the sinful in this life may be accounted for on 
the ground of his willful rejection. The Holy 
Ghost cannot trespass upon free moral agency. 
It is an awful fact, significant of man's greatness 
in the scale of being, that at the bidding of a 



252 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

human will the Holy Spirit must retire. He can- 
not, as well as will not, stay unwelcomed and 
forbidden. 

What has been said at this point may be 
summed up for the sake of clearness and em- 
phasis as follows : All character is unalterably 
fixed without prevenient grace ; the light of the 
Holy Spirit, which lighteth every man that Com- 
eth into the world, makes moral and spiritual 
reform possible ; and the final withdrawal of that 
Spirit on account of sin forever fixes lost char- 
acter because left to its natural condition of 
moral and spiritual helplessness. The fixation 
doctrine, which assumes the reverse of this, name- 
ly, that the Spirit is ever present, but debarred 
from helpfulness on account of fixed character, 
cannot, therefore, be true. 

(2) Again, it is pure assumption to affirm that 
character can become so fixed as to be beyond 
the possibility of grace to reclaim, all other con- 
siderations aside. There is not a passage in the 
Bible which teaches such a doctrine or warrants 
such a conclusion. There are passages that are 
quoted as proof-texts, but they by no means 
prove it. A favorite passage is Gal. vi, 7, 8 : 
" Be not deceived ; God is not mocked : for 
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 



REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 253 

For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the 
flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth unto 
the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life." 
That this passage teaches certain natural con- 
sequences to a life of sin and others to a life of 
righteousness, which it names, is not in the least 
disputed ; but it does not, therefore, teach that 
in steadfastness of character is to be found the 
reason or law of eternal punishment. The con- 
clusion goes beyond the teaching of the text, or 
any warrantable inference from it. The error in 
the interpretation here, and in the inference as 
to the future life that is drawn from it, as in 
that of other passages of similar import, is in the 
failure to make the proper distinction between 
fixity of character as the inevitable result of 
a sinful life whose probation is ended, where by 
implication and in fact there is no reclaiming 
or restraining grace, and fixity of character as 
the reason or law of eternal punishment. As all 
character without prevenient grace is unaltera- 
bly fixed, so when man persistently refuses the 
assistance of divine grace his character becomes 
more and more confirmed in badness. And so 
it is that all lost character is eternally fixed. 
This much of the theory is fundamentally true ; 
but we believe it is true, not because grace has 



254 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

not the power to rescue, but because a limita- 
tion, outside of the lost soul, is placed upon the 
working of that grace. What that limitation is 
will be seen presently. In the meantime let it 
be borne in mind that fixity of character as a 
result of being left alone and as a law explaining 
the necessity of eternal punishment are radically 
different. 

(3) Another fatal objection to the theory is 
that it necessarily implies, and therefore assumes, 
if it does not assert, that the relations and con- 
ditions of the future life of the lost are substan- 
tially the same as those of this life. But there 
is one important difference which must never be 
forgotten, namely, the momentary gratification 
from sin in this life cannot be received there. 
This inference is in harmony with all Scripture 
teaching with regard to the lost. We must not 
forget that men in this life would not risk and 
suffer the consequences of sin were it not for the 
momentary pleasure of present indulgence. It 
is inconceivable, therefore, that a free will can 
attain such an " ultimate steadfastness and un- 
changing bent ' that it will eternally choose 
the " torment ' of hell in the absence of pleas- 
urable gratification. We might conceive how 
in a life such as this, as long, at least, as the sen- 



REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 255 

sations of pleasure were possible, a corrupted 
heart and perverted will might choose the evil ; 
but not in a life such as the future of the wicked 
will be, where all the conditions and opportuni- 
ties of sinful pleasure are past. Conceivably, 
will not the punishment of the wicked goad 
them, at least, to a desire of deliverance ? If, 
like the rich man, they be driven by the burn- 
ings to call for a drop of cold water, who will say 
that the Spirit could not send that drop, and 
even take them out of -the flame, were there no 
barrier outside of themselves? Might not that 
Spirit that changes the heart of stone to a heart 
of flesh in this life even change the hardened 
character of the lost were there no other law 
that places a limit upon its operation ? The 
" great gulf fixed ' is between the saved and the 
lost, and not in the lost. 

(4) Still further, and of great and conclusive 
significance, is the fact that the Scriptures every- 
where represent eternal punishment as a judicially 
inflicted penalty, and not as the natural result of 
a sinful life. All those passages which speak of 
the wrath of God as revealed from heaven against 
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, and, 
as well, those which describe the final judg- 
ment, proclaim the truth and validity of this 



256 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

objection. Moreover, all the terms used with 
reference to the matter are of a judicial nature. 
" Judge," "judgment,"' " punishment," are famil- 
iar scriptural examples. Christ, in Matt, xxv, 
33, is represented as a judge pronouncing judi- 
cial sentence upon the good and the bad for acts 
in life, and not as one declaring to men the nat- 
ural results of their earthly conduct. If the doc- 
trine of fixity of character were true, we might 
expect to find in the Bible ho threatened pen- 
alties, but only warning as to natural conse- 
quences. It should be observed that the sin 
against the Holy Ghost has never forgiveness. 
Christ does not say : " But he that shall blas- 
pheme against the Holy Ghost will attain final 
permanence of character that can never be 
changed/ or any thing like it ; and any inter- 
pretation that reads it so forces into the Saviour's 
words, not only a meaning that they do not 
contain, but one that is contradictory to their 
judicial sense. 

(5) Lastly, it may be asked, if this doctrine be 
true, how account for an atonement in any true 
sense of atonement, as a plan to deliver from 
the eternal penalties of sin ? If fixation of char- 
acter is the only bar to final restoration, then 
what need of an atonement for forgiveness ? A 



REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 257 

moral influence atonement is, on supposition of 
this doctrine, the only atonement needed ; for, 
clearly, all that men need is remedy, not for- 
giveness ; unless we assume that forgiveness 
through the atonement is of sins with only tem- 
poral guilt. Clearly, the atonement that makes 
possible the remission of eternal guilt teaches 
that there is a barrier other than fixation of 
character that precludes the restoration of the 
lost, who have rejected that atonement, to holi- 
ness and heaven. 

The nature of eternal punishment is not under 
consideration ; yet it should be said that possibly 
this is to be understood as being in the burnings 
of an unalterably fixed evil character ; which fixity 
of character, as explained, is the result of being left 
alone by divine grace. Divine justice may judi- 
cially surrender a lost soul to the eternal gnawings 
and burnings of a bad character. The judicial act 
would thus be the surrendering; the punish- 
ment, the result of that surrender, which, in any 
case, would be moral and spiritual destitution. 
This, at least, seems to be the doctrine of Rev. 
xxii, ii. In these awful words sound forth both 
the eternal sentence of the Judge and the eternal 
doom of the wicked, as well as the eternal lot 

of the righteous. Moreover, the term " death ' 
17 



258 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

as used in the New Testament to signify the 
lost condition of the wicked, and which is, there- 
fore, equivalent to " everlasting punishment " — 
the opposite of " life eternal" — seems to teach 
the same doctrine. Eternal death is not in the 
extinction or annihilation of the soul, but in the 
total loss of the divine holiness and presence, as 
eternal life is the eternal life of God in the soul. 
In this deprivation of the life of God, which 
must be eternal death, is to be found, it would 
seem, the nature of that punishment to which 
the justice of God surrenders the finally impen- 
itent. Here, if anywhere in connection with 
this doctrine, might be appropriately quoted 
Gal. vi, 7, 8, and similar Scriptures, with their 
inferential significance.* 



* Since this chapter was written we have met a doctrine the very 
reverse of the one just reviewed. It is the doctrine of Dr. 
Campbell's little book, Unto the Utten?iost. It rejects the fix- 
ation doctrine, and, taking its suggestion, it would seem, from 
Dorner (vol. iv, p. 424), makes the only barrier in the way of 
final universal restoration to consist in the eternal and free 
refusal of the soul to be restored. Thus : ' ' The freedom of 
man as a moral being, and his consequent responsibility to 
God, continue forever under conditions which render response 
to every moral requirement eternally possible " (Preface, et 
passim). But this is to remove every barrier to universal resto- 
ration, for no soul can choose eternal hell. The Andover 
Review rightly designates the book of Dr. Campbell as " Res- 
torationist." 



REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT, 259 

2. Is the law of necessity in eternal punish- 
ment from eternal sinning? 

" It is not that the Judge assigns eternal pun- 
ishment for temporal sin ; but that sin is taken 
confirmed into eternity. Non cessante peccato 
nequit cessare poena. It is not because man has 
sinned only, but because his nature is turned 
away from God, and he sins still. One of our 
Lord's most solemn words of threatening pre- 
diction was this : i Ye shall die in your sins* 
{Popes Compendium of Christian Theology, vol. 
iii, p. 421). " There is no eternal punishment 
but of eternal sinning: the eternal state of sep- 
aration from God is both sin and its punish- 
ment " {ibid., 437). 

The following is taken from The Christian 
Advocate of October 23, 1884, in an article en- 
titled " Eternal Sinning,' by Rev. T. H. Arm- 
strong, Ph.D. : 

" But these are held in eternal sin ; such is the 
habit they have fixed about themselves that 
they cannot but sin. Each new day of eternity 
the soul will darken with sin and discharge upon 
itself the wrathful shafts of the nature of things. 
The righteous Judge does not assign eternal 
punishment for temporal sin, but that sin is 
taken confirmed into eternity. Well has one of 



260 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

the fathers said : Non cessante peccato nequit ces- 
sare poena. While sin does not cease it is im- 
possible for punishment to cease. It is the sin 
which the soul commits in eternity for which it 
shall be punished eternally, and not the sin of 
this probationary life. Until some one can show 
how the soul can be delivered from sin in eter- 
nity, eternal punishment cannot be denied."- 

A composite doctrine, it starts with assuming 
eternal fixedness of character &s the ground of 
eternal sinning, and awards the punishments 
— not punishment — of eternity to the lost on 
the ground of eternally repeated acts of sin- 
ning.* Thus Christ will be forever a Judge 
awarding to the lost the just penalties of their 
continual sins! Or, perhaps, the eternity of 
punishment will be awarded in the judgment 
once for all in view of the foreseen eternal sin- 
ning! Moreover, eternal punishment is not the 
penalty for sins committed " in the body " (2 Cor. 
v, 10) ; but the punishments of eternal sinning 
out of the body. 

The manifestly anti-scriptural character of this 



* In Dr. Pope's treatment of the doctrine estate is said to be 
sin (a doctrine that well accords with the equally untenable doc- 
trine of " hereditary guilt " ) ; and for this guilty state the pun- 
ishment of eternity is awarded. 



REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 261 

doctrine makes it unnecessary to notice it 
further.* 

3. We may now turn to a theory which is 
thoroughly scriptural, and answers, as we believe, 
to a real necessity. It is the doctrine of the 
Methodist Catechism. 

Question. — " Why is it right and necessary 
that God should punish sin ? " 

Answer. — " In order to vindicate his law, to 
preserve his authority, and to promote the great- 
est good of his creatures ' (Catechism No. 3, 
p. 28). 

The doctrine thus succinctly stated finds its 
fundamental principles in the Scriptures, and 
bases its conclusions on those principles. The 
following propositions are, therefore, quite self- 
evident. 

(1) God is a moral Ruler; and as such has es- 
tablished certain laws of his government, and 
affixed penalties to those laws as their sanction. 

(2) The honor of God and the good of his 
obedient moral subjects are involved in the con- 
servation of his government. 

(3) Without penalty law could not restrain the 



* Perhaps attention might well be called to the fact that he 
who commits the sin against the Holy Ghost is said to be 
" guilty of an eternal sin " (Mark iii, 29). 



262 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

disobedient ; for such law, if indeed it can 
properly be called law, would be no more than 
entreaty or advice. 

(4) Without law there could be no moral gov- 
ernment over free intelligent beings. 

(5) Without government there would be an- 
archy in the moral universe. 

(6) God as a God of justice, as well as a God 
of love, could not allow anarchy to prevail among 
his intelligent moral subjects ; for that would be 
indifference to the interests of those whose 
choice is that of obedience and holiness. 

(7) God, having created free moral subjects, 
and having established the principles of moral 
government, is bound — but bound by a self-im- 
posed obligation* — to conserve his government 

* It is objected to this doctrine by some that it ties the 
hands of God, and is, consequently, a reflection upon the di- 
vine almightiness. Our reply is, Even creation is a limitation 
upon God ; and natural law as much so as governmental law. 
The limitation of creation (in which is involved that of natural 
law), which Pantheism urges as an objection to Theism, is, as 
Dr. G. P. Fisher says, t4 voluntary. It is a self -limitation" 
and li a most free act, performed in the exercise of benevolence." 
The same is our defense of the divine governmental limitations. 
Moreover, governmental laws inhere in, or are based upon, the 
nature of moral relations. Moral law is by reason of created 
moral beings, and upon the fact and ground of moral law is 
superinduced governmental law ; so that the divine govern- 
mental law is founded upon so-called natural law ; or, in other 
words, upon divinely established natural relations. Besides, it 



REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 263 

for his own honor and the interests of his 
obedient subjects. 

(8) The penalty that God has affixed to his 
laws as their sanction is eternal punishment. 

(9) The only escape from that penalty for guilty 
man is in the atonement. 

(10) The atonesment rejected in probation leaves 
the soul after death to the endurance of the 
penalty of God's violated laws.* 

This is a brief statement of principles which 
need no elaboration. 

All that was said in objection to the doctrine 
of steadfastness of character may be reaffirmed 
in the interest of the present one ; especially the 
fact that eternal punishment is a judicially in- 
flicted penalty. If eternal punishment were not 

does not relieve the matter to refer it to natural law instead of 
governmental, for God is the author of both. Indeed, it ag- 
gravates the difficulty, for there is no reason suggested in the 
doctrine of natural law for the eternal continuance of penalty ; 
no reason why the wicked, for example, should not be annihi- 
lated. Still further. God has governmental law in this world. 
He had it in the Jewish theocracy, has it now among Christians — 
that is, in the laws of the Christian Church — and has it also in 
the secular world, and has always had it (Rom. xiii). But all of 
this is and has been based upon natural moral and human 
relationships. 

* The same law which required an atonement in order that 
God might forgive sin must be the law of necessity in the 
eternal punishment of those who, in probation, reject that 
atonement. Both doctrines are one in their philosophy. 



264 FUTURE RETRIBUTION, 

a rectoral necessity it would not be represented 
in the Bible as a penalty inflicted for violation of 
divine law. Character, we have seen, is unalter- 
ably fixed in moral and spiritual ruin when the 
Holy Ghost forever leaves the soul. In a gov- 
ernmental necessity we find the reason why the 
Holy Spirit forever takes his flight and leaves the 
finally impenitent to the natural consequences of 
moral and spiritual impotency. It is this neces- 
sity that fixes the " great gulf between heaven 
and hell. God cannot, consistently with justice 
and the demands of his government, justify the 
guilty who, in the time of probation, reject the 
atonement. 

It will be needful to ask and answer two ques- 
tions of difficulty. 

I. What is the measure of the intrinsic demerit 
of sin ? It is readily granted that God could not 
injustice punish sin beyond the measure of its 
deserts, not even in the interest of moral govern- 
ment. Such ^justice would be subversive of 
moral government. Moreover, it is contrary to 
the character of God. What, then, is the meas- 
ure of sin's intrinsic demerit? Who, it must be 
asked, from the very nature of the case, can 
answer this question but He who alone is omnis- 
cient and who possesses the scales of eternal 



REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 265 

right? In such a matter it is not for man to 
presume to answer; it is a fact beyond his reach. 
If, presumably, God alone is able to answer this 
question, where shall we find that answer, if it is 
to be found at all, but in his revealed Word? 
His Word teaches the fact of eternal punishment. 
Therefore, we infer that as God is just and his 
word true, eternal punishment is his revelation 
to us of the least measure of the intrinsic de- 
merit of sin. 

2. The second question relates to the measure 
of punishment necessary for the conservation of 
God's moral government. It is not true that 
God must punish sin to the full extent of its 
demerit, or to any extent, apart from rectoral 
considerations. 

" Nor has penalty any rational account simply 
as retributive. It does not so answer to the 
common moral judgment respecting it, nor to 
the severe denunciations of Scripture against 
criminal injuries, nor to the many appeals there- 
in to instances of divine retribution as a deterrent 
from sin. And for a right exposition of justice 
we must take large account of its strictly rectoral 
ends '' (Miley, Atonement in Christ, p. 222). 

This being true, the question recurs, What is 
the measure of the punishment necessary for the 



266 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

conservation of the divine government ? What 
finite mind, again, shall presume to answer ? 
This, also, is beyond the knowledge of man. 
We therefore appeal, as before, for our answer to 
the Scriptures. We there find the same fact of 
eternal punishment. Therefore, we conclude, as 
before, that since God is love and would not 
punish sin beyond the demands of his govern- 
ment even if sin had greater intrinsic demerit, 
eternal punishment is God's revelation to us of 
the least measure of punishment necessary for 
the ends of his government. 

Thus we have revealed from heaven the 
answer to both inquiries. The one fact of 
eternal punishment revealed, in view of the char- 
acter of God and the nature of justice, proclaims 
to us the twofold fact of the eternal demerit of 
sin and the necessity of an eternal penalty for 
the ends of divine government. 

The following forceful and beautiful statement 
of truth from Dr. Pope, notwithstanding the 
criticism offered upon another element of his 
doctrine, may fitly conclude this discussion : 

" The righteousness of divine laws implies also 
that they are conformed to his aim and purpose, 
and in this sense right. It is well to believe that 
they are equal and just in their relation to the 



REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 267 

creaturely nature. But that is not all. They 
must be measured by another standard ; they 
are right in their perfect adaptation to the divine 
plans. Here comes in ourapologyfor the divine 
Lawgiver : his own supreme theodicy, or vindica- 
tion of himself. It is not given us to understand 
the mysteries of the hidden rectoral administra- 
tion of God. We must believe now that it is 
righteous ; as we shall certainly one day know 
that it is. Clouds and darkness are round about 
him : unbelief forms out of these clouds, and 
writes upon this darkness innumerable matters 
of questioning. But righteousness and Judgment 
are the habitation of his throne : behind, all is 
clear, steadfast, and perfect right. . . . Ten 
thousand difficulties are swept away, rather are 
obviated, if we remember that the righteousness 
of God's moral government is to be measured 
not only by the creature's nature — it will always 
bear to be thus measured — but by the design 
and final end of the economy of his will." 










Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



